APHC010017082025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) u MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER'- TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI ^ WRIT PETITION NO: 1007 OF 2025 Between: 1. Marisetty Venkata Rao, S/o Ramaiah, aged about 65 years. Marisetty'^Veeraiah, S/o Ramaiah, aged about 60 years. Both are residents of Rentapatla Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Palnadu District. 2. ...PETITIONERS- AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. The Institution of Lokayuktha of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Registrar, D.No.96-3-72-124-1, Santosh Nagar, Kurnool, Kurnool District. The District Collector, Palnadu District at Narasaraopet. The Tahasildar, Sattenapalli Mandal, Sattenapalli, Palnadu District. The Station House Officer, Sattenapalli Rural Police Station Sattenapalli, Palnadu District. ' Kattekota SriniVasa Rao, S/o China Narasimha Rao, aged about 50 years, R/o Rentapalla Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Palnadu District. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. V'* ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to and in connection with the order dated 4.11.2024 passed in Complaint No./6o/2023/B1 and communicated vide Lr.Dis.No.7Q0/2023/B1/LOK/11590/2024 dated 8.11.2024 ' by the 2 nd respondent-Lokayuktha and quash the same as illegal, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass A.P.Lokayuktha Act, 1983. Book Act and the lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 4.11.2024 passed Complaint NO.700/2023/B1 in and Lr.Dis.No.700/2023/B1/LOK/11590/2024 dated 8.11.2024 by the 2 respondent-Lokayuktha, pending disposal of the writ petition. communicated vide V nd Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI KOCHIRI RAJA SHEKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,3 & 4:GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.2:— Counsel for the Respondent No.5;GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.6: M/s. KOTA KRISHNA DEEPTHI The Court made the following order: Bench Sr.No:-27 [3483] APHC010017082025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 1007 of 2025 ...Petitioner(s) Marisetty Venkata Rao and others Vs. ...Respondent(s) State of Andhra Pradesh and others ********** Mr. Kochiri Raja Shekar Ms. Kota Krishna Deepthi, GP for Home, GP for Revenue Advocate for Petitioner; Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI ; 8*'^ September, 2025. DATE PC : Land measuring Acs.2.50 cents situate in Rentapalla Revenue Village in Palnadu District is the bone of contention between the petitioners and respondent No.6. The petitioners claim that they acquired the said property from their ancestors and claim to be its owners. It is stated that the revenue authorities mutated the names of the petitioners and issued Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds in their favour in the year 1995. The petitioners claim that respondent No.6 and his family members interfered with the possession and enjoyment over the said property which led petitioners to file Original Suit bearing O.S.No.390 of 2016 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Satenapalli. An interim injunction was granted by virtue of 2. ^ HCJ & RCJ WP_1007_2025 order dated 09.09.2016 in I.A.No.1384 of 2016 by the said Court. The Civil Suit is still pending consideration before the Court in which written statement has been filed by respondent No.6. 3. In the meanwhile, a complaint came to be filed before the Lokayukta in the year 2023, wherein it was stated that the land in question was in fact purchased by the wife of the complainant in the year 1992, which was encroached upon and occupied by the petitioners in collusion with the revenue officials. It was stated in the complaint that several requests were made to conduct the survey of the subject land and fix the boundaries but no action was taken in that regard. called from the District Collector, Palnadu, by the A report was Lokayukta, wherein it is stated that that there was a dispute between the 2016 and that a Civil Suit was still pending. It is further stated 4. parties since that the survey team Sattenapalli, had measured the land of the complainant and notified the respective areas in Form-42, which was not acceptable to the complainant. It was stated in the report that as per the Standard Operating Procedure, after resurvey and issuance of Form-42, an Appeal could be filed before the Deputy Tahsildar, which was not filed by the complainant. under the directions of the Mandal Surveyor The Lokayukta, however, held that it was unjust on the part of the refuse to measure the land in regard to which the complainant had made a request for conducting survey and demarcation of 5. revenue authorities to 3 HCJ & RCJ WP 1007 2025 to the Director the same. It therefore ordered to entrust the matter (Investigation) to depute one of the Deputy personally visit the land along with the complainant and also to demarcate the land bearing Survey No.112-3C3, which was the subject matter in O.S.No.390 of 2016. Directors (Investigation) to i placed before the Lokayukta which held cents of land, which was found After investigation, a report was 6. that the complainant and his wife has lost nine under encroachment by the petitioners herein who had originally only Acs.2.26 cents of land as per revenue records. It is in that backdrop that the Lokayukta be conducted and ordered action to be taken, to included and directed a detailed enquiry to delete the land to an extent of sixteen cents which was further direction to enter in the encroached by the petitioners herein with a revenue records the names Disciplinary action was also directed to revenue officials. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. of the complainant after rectifying the same, be taken against the concerned for the petitioners would submit that the order is 7. Learned counsel law for the simple reason that no notice was served upon the opportunity of being heard was given before unsustainable in petitioners much less was any ordering the authorities to delete the name of the petitioners from the revenue violation of the records. It is thus stated that the action ordered is in gross principles of natural justice. HCJ & RCJ WP 1007 2025 The second point urged was that the Lokayukta could have only made recommendations to the competent authority and could not have directed action to be taken directly by the District Collector, Palnadu, to correct the revenue records by deleting the name of the petitioners. 8. Thirdly, it was urged that the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint inasmuch as there was a clear bar in terms of Section 8(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Upa-Lokayukta Act, 1983, (for short, “the Act of 1983”) which specifically prohibits any investigation in any complaint, involving an allegation, if a complaint is made after the expiry of the six years from the date on which the action complained is alleged to have taken place. 9. In the present case, it was urged that the names of the petitioners had been mutated in the revenue records in the year 1995 itself. Whereas, the complaint was filed with the Lokayukta in the year 2023, and therefore, entertaining the complaint and passing the orders were in gross violation of 10. Section 8(2) of the Act of 1983. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, could not justify as to 11. how the impugned order could be sustained in the absence of an opportunity of being heard being given to the petitioners. From the order impugned, it is clear that no opportunity of being heard given to the petitioners and which would have enabled the petitioners to raise all the issues, including the prohibition as envisaged under Section 8(2) of the Act of 1983. 12. was ever 5 HCJ & RCJ WP 1007 2025 While the Act does not in so many words envisage a notice to be given to the affected parties, however, in the present case in view of the long standing dispute between the parties, with regard to the boundaries and demarcation of the land in question, the petitioners were entitled to hearing before the Lokayukta. 13. 14. We, accordingly, allow this Writ Petition and set aside the order impugned dated 04.11.2024. The Lokayukta shall pass appropriate orders after considering all the objections, which may be raised by the petitioners, in addition to the ones which have been highlighted in the preceding paragraphs. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this petition, shall stand closed. Sd/- WI.PRABHAKAR RAO assistant REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Registrar, Institution of Lokayuktha of Andhra Pradesh, D.No.96-3- 72-124-1, Santosh Nagar, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3. The District Collector, Palnadu District at Narasaraopet. 4. The Tahasildar, Sattenapalli M^h^l, Sattenapalli, Palnadu District. The Station House Officer, Sajtenapalli Rural Police Station Sattenapalli, Palnadu District. 6. One CC to Sri Kochiri Raja Shekar, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to M/s. Kota Krish^ Deepthi, Advocate [OPUC] 8. TwoCCsto GP for Home^igh Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Two CCs to GP for Rev^e, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 10. Two CD Copies. 1. 5. 9. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:08/09/2025 ORDER WP No. 1007 OF 2025 > g T 9 SEP 2025 S ^ . Current Section ^ ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS