M/S. Pilicon Projects And ... vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 392 Tel

   THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

WRIT PETITION No.32702 of 2021

ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)

The petitioners before this Court have filed this petition

being aggrieved by the order dated 27.07.2015 passed by the

Hon'ble Lokayukta in Complaint Nos.3154 of 2013, 3165 of 2012

and 1908/2010/B1, directing mutation of names in certain

revenue records.

The order passed by the Lokayukta is reproduced as under:-

"The Assistant Commissioners of Endowments of both the Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy Districts and the Executive Officer of Sri Murali Manohara Swamy Temple and their staff are present. Reports are filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, R.R.District, Collector, Hyderabad District and the Executive Officer of Sri Murali Manohara Swamy Temple. Considerable progress is made since the last hearing date and particulars of about 500 encroachers on the endowment properties have been gathered and further work is in progress. As I see the report, the further encroachments can be stopped, provided Municipal Corporation filters the applications for constructions, by imposing a condition of getting no objection certificates from the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, be it, Hyderabad, Secunderabad or Ranga Reddy. The Commissioner of GHMC is directed to take steps to ensure the compliance of the aforesaid condition and file his compliance report, by 30.11.2015.

The Deputy Collectors/Tahsildars of Shamshabad, Shamirpet, Rajendranagar Mandals of R.R.District and also Deputy Collector/Tahsildar of Bahadurpura Mandal of Hyderabad District are directed to mutate the names of the endowments, as requested by the concerned Assistant Commissioners of Endowments and file their compliance reports, by 30.11.2015.

For further action taken reports of the Assistant Commissioners of Endowments of Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy also, call on 30.11.2015.

Call on 30.11.2015."

Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued

before this Court that the Lokayukta does not have the power to

direct mutation of entries in the revenue records, keeping in view

the Telangana Lokayukta Act, 1983 as amended by Act 31 of 2017

(for short 'the Act'). Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon

the judgment delivered by a Full Bench of the unified High Court

for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in the case of Dr.

R.G.Sunil Reddy vs. The A.P.Lokayukta, Basheerbagh,

Hyderabad and others1.

The statutory provision of law governing the field, under

Section 7 of the Act, is reproduced as under:-

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

(l) 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 (l), 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 Upa-Lokayukta, the subject of an allegation.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (2), the Lokayukta may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, investigate any allegation in respect of

(2015) 6 ALD 302 (FB)

an action which may be investigated by the Upa- Lokayukta under that sub-section, whether or not complaint has been made to the Lokayukta in respect of such action.

(4) Where two or more Upa-Lokayuktas are appointed under this Act, the Lokayukta may, by general or special order, assign to each of them matters which may be investigated by them under this Act :

Provided that no investigation made by the Upa- Inkayukta under this Act and no action taken or thing done by him in respect of such investigation shall be called in question on the ground only that such investigation relates to a matter which is not assigned to him by such order."

The aforesaid statutory provision of law empowers the

Lokayukta to investigate the matters wherein a complaint is

received involving an allegation against a public servant. In the

present case, the Lokayukta has certainly transgressed its

jurisdiction by directing mutation of entries in the revenue records.

The Full Bench, in the case of Dr. R.G.Sunil Reddy (supra),

while answering the issue whether the A.P. Lokayukta has

jurisdiction to entertain a complaint which does not involve an

allegation, has held at paras 27 and 28 as under:-

"27. So far as three impugned directions given by the Lokayukta are concerned, learned counsel for the third respondent defended the said orders under Rule 22 of the Rules by contending that they are part of preliminary verification permissible under Rule 5 of the Rules. We are, however, of the view that when the Act itself does not empower the Lokayukta to issue any directions of the nature, as issued under the impugned order, neither the Rules can be read so as to defeat the object and purpose of the Act nor the Rules can override the provisions of the Act. The power of Lokayukta to undertake preliminary verification arises only in the event of registration of the complaint and on its, prima facie, satisfaction that all the essential ingredients required to be maintained in the complaint under Section 7 of the Act are satisfied. Thus, as discussed above, when the complaint of the third respondent sans any such allegation

cognizable under Section 7 of the Act, all further proceedings including the impugned orders, in our view, cannot be sustained.

28. We, accordingly, answer question No.1 in the negative and hold that the Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint, which neither involves an allegation nor involves any action or inaction connected with such an allegation. We also hold that inter se private disputes between the parties including matrimonial dispute does not fall within the purview of the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta under the Act and that only such acts, which are actuated by allegation against public servants and the authorities as named under Section 7 of the Act alone fall within the domain of the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta, as the case may be. The discussion, as above, also answers question No.2 in the negative. Question No.3, however, does not arise on the facts and circumstances of the case and would amount to adjudication on hypothetical question. Hence, the said question is left open."

In the light of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the Lokayukta has passed the order

without jurisdiction and therefore, the same is set aside. The

consequential orders passed by the authorities based upon the

Lokayuktha order are also set aside. However, the parties shall be

free to take recourse to the remedies available under law.

Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_______________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

02.02.2022 JSU