SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 19336

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Lisa Gill, CJ, R Raghunandan Rao, J
SUNKARA CHINNA VENKATESWARULU – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF AP – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 20073 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. V. Satish
For the Respondents: GP for Revenue, Pala Karthi Kiran

The Lokayukta has only recommendatory jurisdiction under the Lokayukta Act and cannot issue positive directions or act as a supervisory authority over other statutory forums, especially when civil remedies are available or pending.

Headnote:(A) Lokayukta Jurisdiction - Positive Directions - The Lokayukta possesses only recommendatory jurisdiction under Section 12(1) of the Lokayukta Act, 1983, and is not competent to issue positive directions for the restoration of records. (Para 15, 16)

(B) Administrative Law - Statutory Remedies - Where a specific statute provides a hierarchy of remedies (such as civil suits for cancellation of passbooks), the Lokayukta cannot override these procedures or act as an appellate or supervisory authority. (Para 17, 18)

Issues: Whether the Lokayukta has the jurisdiction to issue positive directions for the restoration of pattadar passbooks.

LISA GILL, CJ.

Prayer in this writ petition is for setting aside orders dated 07.06.2023 and 12.12.2023 passed by learned Lokayukta and consequent order dated 29.08.2024 passed by Joint Collector & Addl. District Magistrate, Nandyal.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner No.1, respondent No.6 and Late Sri Sunkara Peda Venkateswarulu are siblings. They had jointly purchased the land, as described in writ petition, vide registered sale deed dated 26.07.1993. Ac.2.00 cents of land each was mutated in favour of three brothers and pattadar passbooks were issued in the year 2001. Thereafter, Sri Peda Venkateswarulu died, and his rights of property devolved upon his two sons, who, in turn, sold their land of Ac.2.00 cents in favour of petitioner No.1. Similarly, respondent No.6 also sold his land in favour of petitioner No.1 by way of an unregistered sale deed dated 06.07.1998, after receiving sale consideration of Rs.90,000/-, and possession of property was handed over to petitioner No.1.

Thereafter, petitioner No.1 applied for mutation of property in his favour. During said proceedings, respondent No.6 appeared before Tahsildar/respondent No.5 herein and accepted the sale in favour of petitioner No.1, and gave his consent for mutation of property in favour of petitioner No.1. Consequently, mutation was thus carried out vide order dated 02.11.2002, and pattadar passbooks were issued to petitioner No.1, and since then, he continues to be in peaceful possession of said property. Subsequently, partition of property was carried out between petitioner No.1 and his sons i.e. petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.3, land was mutated in favour of petitioner Nos.2 & 3 to an extent of Ac.3.00 Cents each.

Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that Writ Petition No.6436 of 2015 was filed by respondent No.6 herein to the effect that representation dated 04.10.2010 challenging the mutation in petitioner’s favour was not being decided. Respondent No.4 had passed an order directing respondent No.6 to approach the civil court. Revision Petition challenging said order was filed and the matter was remitted by respondent No.3 to respondent No.4 to conduct a fresh enquiry. With a grievance that no action was being taken, above writ petition was filed, which was disposed of by learned Single Bench of this Court, directing respondent No.4 to pass appropriate orders, if not so done, and granting liberty to respondent No.6 to approach the civil court seeking cancellation of pattadar passbooks in terms of Section 8(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 .

Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that another writ petition i.e. W.P.No.941 of 2020 was filed by respondent No.6 raising allegations that no action was being taken by respondent No.4 in conducting an enquiry. It is further submitted that counter-affidavits have been filed by Tahsildar/respondent No.5 herein as well as petitioner herein in the said writ petition, and that said matter is still pending adjudication.

In the meantime, it came to notice of petitioner, upon being summoned to the office of Tahsildar on 03.09.2024, that orders dated 07.06.2023 and 12.12.2023 had been passed by learned Lokayukta in complaint No.1582 of 2021 filed by respondent No.6, which culminated in passing of order dated 29.08.2024 by Joint Collector & Addl. District Magistrate/respondent No.3 herein.

Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that O.S.No.248 of 2010 was filed by him before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, which came to be dismissed. Appeal vide A.S.No.6 of 2018 challenging the same is stated to be still pending before the III Additional District Judge, Nandyal.

Learned Lokayukta, while taking note of the fact that W.P.No.941 of 2020 filed by respondent No.6 is still pending, and that A.S.No.6 of 2018 filed by petitioner is also pending in respect of same matter, directed departmental action again

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top