ORDER :

1. The present writ petition is arising out of a notice issued by the Upa-Lokayukta dated 01.03.2017 directing the petitioner to handover possession of the subject house to the respondent No.1 herein.

2. The facts of the case reveal that a complaint was preferred to the Upa-Lokayukta by the respondent No.1 herein stating that the petitioner Devasthanam has taken possession of the subject house and the Upa-Lokayukta has issued a notice to the petitioner directing delivery of possession.

3. This Court on 20.12.2021 had an occasion to deal with the issue of jurisdiction of Lokayukta in W.P.Nos.5196 and 5204 of 2021, which were filed by the Telangana State Film Development Corporation Limited being aggrieved by the notice received by them and the proceedings dated 18.06.2020 directing the petitioner to submit a representation in respect of a complaint filed before the Lokayukta/Upalokayuta for the State of Telangana under the Telangana Lokayukta Act, 1983 [as amended by Act 31 of 2017] for reimbursement of Rs.30 lakhs.

4. The order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.5196 and 5204 of 2021 on 20.12.2021 is reproduced as under:-

“Regard being had to the controversy involved in the aforesaid cases, they were being heard together and are being decided by this common order.

The facts in Writ Petition No.5204 of 2021 are reproduced as under :

Heard the counsel for petitioner, and Smt. Sharada, learned Standing Counsel for Lokayukta, appearing on behalf of Sri Y. Ravindra, counsel for 1st respondent, in the Writ Petitions.

The petitioner/Telangana State Film Development Corporation Limited has filed the present Writ Petition being aggrieved by the notice received by them and the proceedings dt.18.06.2020 directing the petitioner to submit a representation in respect of a complaint submitted by 2nd respondent to the Lokayukta establishment.

The petitioner’s contention is that the so-called complaint was filed before the Lokayukta/Upalokayuta for the State of Telangana under the Telangana Lokayukta Act, 1983 [as amended by Act 31 of 2017] for reimbursement of Rs.30 lakhs.

The 2nd respondent has stated in the complaint that he has prepared some documentary for promotion of Children Films, and after preparation of documentary the amount has not been paid to him by the petitioner.

The learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Dr. R.G. Sunil Reddy vs. The A.P. Lokayukta, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and two others ((2015) 6 ALD 302 (F.B.)). He has also stated that a Money Suit/Recovery Proceedings for recovery of dues without there being any allegation of corruption is beyond the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta establishment. Further, he placed reliance upon Section 7 of the Act, and the same is reproduced as under :

“7. Matters which may be investigated by Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta:-

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Lokayukta may investigate any action which is taken by, or with the general or specific approval of, or at the behest of,-

(i) a Minister or a Secretary; or

(ii) a Member of either House of the State Legislature; or

(iii) a Mayor of the Municipal Corporation constituted by or under the relevant law for the time being in force; or

[(iiia) a Vice Chancellor or a Registrar of a University.]

(iv) any other public servant, belonging to such class or section of public servants, as may be notified by the Government in this behalf after consultation with the Lokayukta in any case where a complaint involving an allegation is made in respect of such action, or such action can be or could have been, in the opinion of the Lokayukta, the subject of an allegation.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Upa-Lokayukta may investigate any action which is taken by, or with the general or specific approval of, any public servant, other than those referred to in sub-section (1), in any case where a complaint involving an allegation is made in respect of such action or such action can b