Common Order:

Challa Gunaranjan, J.

1. These two writ petitions since have been instituted by the very same set of petitioners, and the grievance in both cases being inter- connected, they were heard together and are being disposed of by the present common order.

2. W.P.No.25721 of 2011 has been preferred assailing the orders, dated 23.06.2011, 07.09.2011 and 07.09.2011, passed by 7th respondent A.P. Lok Ayukta in Complaint No.1656/10/B1, instituted by implead respondent No.8, to be illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, and consequently, to set aside the same by directing respondents 1 to 6 to consider the applications of petitioners for regularisation of their possession over the subject property in terms of G.O.Ms.No.166 Revenue (Assn.POT) Department, dated 16.02.2008, and to pass appropriate orders thereon. After institution of W.P.No.25721 of 2011, inasmuch as the building permissions though were granted in favour of writ petitioners by Nagar Panchayat, Addanki, since came to be cancelled by orders, dated 14.09.2011, which was stated to be in pursuance to the directions issued by the A.P. Lok Ayukta, the same has been assailed in W.P.No.27045 of 2011. In both these writ petitions, this Court has granted interim stay at the admission stage.

3. Petitioners claim that they have been in occupation of an extent of Ac.1.14 cents in Survey No.199/4 of North Addanki village, Prakasam District, for the last four decades. Initially, the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Addanki, stated to have granted “Ek Saal” lease in favour of 1st petitioner in the year 1994 and the said lease was with respect to the very same land in Survey No.199/2 of North Addanki Village, which later came to be reassigned as Survey No.199/4. Subsequently, the then Mandal Revenue Officer also stated to have granted D.K.T. patta, in R.C.B.455/95, dated 09.09.1995, in favour of 1st petitioner. The said extent of Ac.1.14 cents has eventually been divided and partitioned amongst the petitioners, and accordingly, now the petitioners are in possession and occupation to an extent of Ac.0.31 cents; Ac.0.27 cents; Ac.0.29 cents and Ac.0.27 cents respectively.

4. It is also stated that they were granted permissions for constructing residential houses in the said property and that the property has already been assessed to tax after assigning house numbers, and that they have been paying tax regularly. Later, as petitioners have formed into a partnership firm in the name and style of “Sri Veerasai Modern Bricks” with a view to manufacture fly ash bricks, they have also secured necessary licences and secured permissions from the Gram Panchayat, Addanki, for establishing the said business. In place of old building, even fresh permission was secured for constructing new building, and that by proceedings, dated 18.02.2010, the permission was accordingly granted in favour of 1st petitioner, who eventually constructed a new house. Insofar as 2nd petitioner was concerned, though permission was granted, no construction has taken place so far. Petitioners later made application to the Government seeking regularisation of the occupation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008, and that the District Level Committee had recommended their cases to the Commissioner of Land Revenue by proceedings, dated 15.06.2009, and 11.09.2009, for regularisation, which was stated to be pending.

5. At that juncture, at the behest of the unofficial respondent in these writ petitions, A.P. Lok Ayukta has entertained the complaint and got enquired into the allegations of illegal occupation and constructions made over subject property and eventually issued series of orders, dated 23.06.2011 and 07.09.2011 respectively, inter alia, directing the official respondents to take action for cancellation of permissions so granted and also for eviction. In that background, petitioners have approached this Court by filing the first writ petition challenging the orders of A.P. Lok Ayukta, and in the second writ petition, the consequential action of Nagar Panchayat, Addanki, in issuing orders by which the building permissions granted earlier came to be cancelled.

6. Heard Sri K.Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners; and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for official respondents; and Sri B.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for unofficial respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly emphasized that the directions and the orders passed by 7th respondent A.P. Lok Ayukta, directing official respondents to initiate action against the petitioners either for cancellation of the building permissions already granted or eviction, clearly were without jurisdiction. Since the petitioners were entitled to be considered for regularisation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008, and that the District Level Committee has already recommended their cases to the competent authority, the directions so issued by the A.P. Lok Ayukta would virtually defeat the right and claim of the petitioners for regularisation and at any rate, it is not for the A.P. Lok Ayukta to delve into such enquiry and issue series of directions.

8. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the official respondents and learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondent, contended that the subject land is neither amenable for assignment nor regularization inasmuch as the same has been classified as Rastha Poramboku in revenue records and even otherwise, such land cannot be regularized in terms of G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008. The enquiry that was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer revealed that the petitioners were only granted “Ek Saal” lease, but not assignment, much less D.K.T. patta, as claimed, therefore, the claim of the petitioners that they were granted D.K.T. patta is completely unfounded. When the matter was taken up by the A.P. Lok Ayukta, since it has been found that the District Level Committee recommended the case of the petitioners for regularisation, as subject property has been classified as Rastha Poramboku, such recommendation has been withdrawn, and further steps have been taken to cancel the building permissions that were granted earlier dehors the directions issued by the A.P. Lok Ayukta. That the A.P. Lok Ayukta merely enquired into the complaint of unofficial respondent with regard to the allegations therein, but did not decide the right and title to the subject property as claimed by the petitioners.

9. We have considered the submissions of the respective counsels and also have gone through the orders that have been passed by the A.P. Lok Ayukta.

10. The admitted case of the petitioners is that they have been in occupation of the subject property, initially, based on “Ek Saal” lease granted in favour of 1st petitioner by the then Mandal Revenue Officer. The 1st petitioner later claimed to have been granted D.K.T.Patta by proceedings, dated 09.09.1995. They were granted permission to construct houses initially, the same were assessed to house tax and later, petitioners 1 and 2 alone applied for construction of new buildings and the same were granted on 18.02.2010, only 1st petitioner stated to have constructed the building, and the 2nd petitioner has not started any construction. The entire case of petitioners rests on the claim of D.K.T. patta issued in favour of 1st petitioner. Be that as it may, it is stated that petitioners later have sought for regularisation in terms of G.O.Ms. No.166, dated 16.02.2008, which was considered positively by the District Level Committee, who recommended petitioners’ case to the Commissioner of Land Revenue by proceedings, dated 15.06.2011, 11.09.2011 and 11.09.2011.

11. The respondents have now come up with a stand that the subject property was initially granted to the 1st petitioner only on “Ek Saal” lease, and that there was never any assignment in their favour. This is so, because the subject land has been classified as Rastha Poramboku, which aspect has never been disputed by the petitioners, incapable of being granted any assignment. In the enquiry that was initiated before the A.P. Lok Ayukta, which essentially was in the nature of a complaint at the instance of unofficial respondent to protect the encroachment of Rastha Poramboku, no doubt, a report was called for from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, who after inspection, has submitted reports, dated 22.06.2011 and 05.09.2011, suggesting that as per the revenue records, never any D.K.T. pattas were issued in favour of any of the occupants over the subject land, but for issuing only “Ek Saal” lease, and that too only for the year 1995-96, further that now having realised that applications are filed by the petitioners for regularisation of their occupation in terms of G.O.Ms. No.166, dated 16.02.2008, it was decided that the earlier recommendation made for regularisation has been withdrawn, in view of the fact that the very same G.O. under which the regularisation was sought clearly excluded Rastha Porambokus from being considered for regularisation.

12. We are of the view that if at all the petitioners were granted assignment by way of D.K.T. patta, question of they again applying for regularisation under G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008, does not arise. Even otherwise also as rightly contended by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for official respondents that Rastha Poramboku land cannot be regularised in favour of occupants and there is a clear restriction to do so in terms of G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008. Insofar as the enquiry that has been undertaken by the A.P. Lok Ayukta with respect to the complaint initiated by the unofficial respondent, we are of the opinion that what all the unofficial respondent prayed for before the A.P. Lok Ayukta was to initiate action against the officers who were in hand in glove with the writ petitioners to facilitate in securing rights over the subject property, which otherwise being Rastha Poramboku meant to be protected. In that context, the A.P. Lok Ayukta had called for reports from the Revenue Divisional Officer in order to ascertain whether there was any truth in such allegations, and any officer got involved, eventually, the report submitted transpired that the act of petitioners was clearly aimed to regularize the encroachments with connivance of the officers. Even before final orders came to be passed by the A.P. Lok Ayukta, petitioners approached this Court by filing writ petitions. In that view of the matter, A.P. Lok Ayukta has passed final orders, dated 05.08.2024, by taking notice of the pendency of the present writ petitions and accordingly, closed the complaint, which would be subject to the final outcome before this Court.

13. The proceedings those were initiated before the A.P. Lok Ayukta was with a view to only initiate action against the erring officers who were in connivance with the writ petitioners to get regularisation of the illegal occupations, which were otherwise prohibited under G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008. In none of the directions or orders passed above, there was any direction as such specifically issued against the writ petitioners, and only the officers were sensitized to act in accordance with law. We are mindful that the A.P. Lok Ayukta did have mere recommendatory jurisdiction, and in the process of enquiry, it is incompetent to issue any positive directions. The official respondents, therefore, had taken appropriate legal steps for eviction of the petitioners by cancelling the permissions and licenses that were granted earlier. As it is not the case of the petitioners that the official respondents failed to follow due process of law in either cancelling the permissions or taking further steps for eviction, we do not find any reason to interdict with the process that has been set in motion.

14. In view of the same, we find no merit in these writ petitions and accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed.