IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20122 of 2008 Between: Dronamraju Sriivasa Rao, S/o. late Sri D. Satyanarayana, R/o. Plot No. 11, Doctors Colony, Pedda Waltair, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Honourable Lokayukta of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. byits Registrar, Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta, Hyderabad. 2 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. byits Principal Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam. 5 Sri I.Suryanarayana, Complainant in Complaint Petition NO. 760/2007/B1, On the File of the Hon'ble Lokayukta, Hyderabad. (Personal Particulars not known to the petitioner) .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to pass a Writ, order or direction, one more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in accepting and taking up the investigation of the complaint in Complaint Petition No. 760/2007/B1 and in passing the interim directions dated 1st May 2008 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, being grossly in violation of Articles 14, 19 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and also being in violation of the provisions and scope of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa- Lokayukta Act, 1983 and consequently quash the Complaint Petition No. 760/2007/B1 and also quash the Show Cause Notice in Rc.No. 3632/2007/E1 dated 12-06-2008 issued by the 3rd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SIVARAJU SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner questions the action of the first respondent Lokayukta in taking up investigation of the complaint petition No.760/2007/B1 at the instance of the 5th respondent and passing the interim order dated 1.5.2008 and the consequential show cause notice issued by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, in Rc.No.3632/2007/E1 dated 12.06.2008 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to quash the same. On the complaint filed by the 5th respondent before the Lokayukta alleging illegal assignment of certain government lands to the extent of Ac.19.74 cents in Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam, in favour of late Dronamraju Satyanarayana and his family members, the Lokayukta directed the District Collector to conduct enquiry and submit a report. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam submitted a report in Rc.No.4560/2007/D, dated 20.3.2008, to the District Collector stating that the said land was assigned in favour of late Dronamraju Satyanarayana and his family members in contravention of the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.1406, dated 25.7.1958 and therefore the said assigned land is required to be cancelled in exercise of powers conferred in para 18(1) of BSO 15 read with G.O.Ms.No.912, Revenue (B) Department, dated 2.8.1985, the Collector is competent to cancel the patta if he is satisfied that the same has been granted/obtained due to mistake of fact or owing to fraud or suppression of material facts or misrepresentation of facts. The District Collector in turn submitted his report dated 28.3.2008 to the Lokayukta enclosing a copy of the report of the R.D.O., Visakhapatnam, dated 20.3.2008, bringing various facts showing the alleged illegal assignment of land to an extent of Ac.19.74 cents in favour of late Dronamraju Satyanarayana and his two wives situated in Visakhapatnam (Rural) Mandal and Pendurthi Mandal, which is part of Visakhapatnam (Urban). Based on the said report, the Lokayukta passed the interim orders dated 1.5.2008 directing the District Collector, Visakhapatnam to take appropriate action for cancellation of the illegal assignments by following the procedure prescribed under law and also to take appropriate action against the officers responsible for misplacing the records relating to the said assignments granted in favour of late Dronamraju Satyanarayana and his family members. Pursuant to the said orders of the Lokayukta dated 1.5.2008 the District Collector, Visakhapatnam issued the show cause notice dated 12.6.2008 stating that Ac.5.07 cents of land in S.No.133/1 and Ac.5.00 in S.No.137/3 were assigned in favour of Dronamraju Satyanarayana and Ac.5.83 cents in S.No.127 and Ac.3.84 cents in S.No.81/3&4 were assigned in favour of two wives of Dronamraju Satyanarayana. The total extent of land assigned was to an extent of Ac.19.74 cents. It is also stated that the said assignment of land is against the policy of the Government in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1406, dated 25.7.1958 and the maximum extent of land which may be assigned to a single family shall be limited to 2 ½ acres of wet or five acres of dry. But contrary to the said G.O., a total extent of Ac.19.74 cents of dry land was assigned in favour of late Dronamraju Satyanarayana and his two wives. It is also stated in the said show cause notice while exercising powers conferred under Para 18 of B.S.O-15 the petitioner, who is the son of late Dronamraju Satyanarayana, was directed to show cause why the assignments granted should not be cancelled and to submit his explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under Section 8(2) of the A.P.Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Act, 1983 the complaint made after the expiry of six years from the date on which the action complained cannot be taken and the action complained is about 40 years ago and therefore the Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint after the expiry of six years of the alleged illegal action. Learned counsel appearing for the Lokayukta submits that the Lokayukta has not taken up any investigation or enquiry independently, but it has called for the report from the revenue authorities and in fact the revenue authorities alone had conducted preliminary enquiry and based on the report submitted by the revenue authorities alone the interim orders had been passed directing the District Collector to take appropriate action. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that under Section 3 of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 any assignment of land made before or after commencement of the Act contrary to any other law for the time being in force shall be deemed never to have been transferred and accordingly no right or title in such assigned land shall vest in any person acquiring the land by such transfer. It is stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.7.1958 a single family is entitled to be assigned 2 ½ acres of wet or five acres of dry and therefore the assignment of the said land is contrary to the said G.O. Admittedly, the action has been initiated on the complaint made by the 5th respondent before the Lokayukta and at the instance of the Lokayukta alone the revenue authorities conducted enquiry and submitted a report. The whole action has been initiated at the instance of Lokayukta and admittedly Lokayukta has no power to investigate after the lapse of six years of the alleged illegal action. As the show cause notice is solely based on the directions issued by the Lokayukta, we are of the opinion that the impugned show cause notice issued by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, cannot be sustained. We are also of the opinion that the Lokayukta ought not to have entertained the complaint, as the period for entertaining the complaint is within six years of the alleged illegality alone under Section 8(2) of the said Act. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 1.5.2008 passed by the Lokayukta and the consequential show cause notice in Rc.No.3632/2007/E1, dated 12.6.2008, issued by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, keeping it open for the District Collector to take appropriate independent action in accordance with law with reference to the provisions of A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition and Transfers) Act and the relevant G.Os., issued by the Government. The complaint made by the 5th respondent also stands closed. The writ petition is allowed accordingly as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 2.6.2009 kpr