JUDGMENT : K.J. Sengupta, J. 1. This writ petition has been directed against the order of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta, dated 8.3.2011 in Complaint No. 2306/2010/B1. It appears that in a money suit a decree was passed. In execution of the decree, in order to recover the decretal dues, a piece of land bearing Plot No. 104, in Survey Nos. 174/2 and 194 situated at Hamlet of Rahimanpuram, Gutupalli Village, Betamcherla Mandal, Kurnool District, was sold in public auction. It appears further that the writ petitioner is a transferee of the auction purchaser. The 7th respondent made a complaint to the learned Lokayukta contending that the sale held by the Executing Court is illegal and invalid, as the land is an assigned patta land and it cannot be sold in public auction. On that complaint, the learned Lokayukta has held that the land was assigned to a landless poor as house site and should not have been sold in execution of decree of a civil Court. Therefore, a direction was issued to the District Collector, Kurnool, to initiate proceedings as per the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short 'the Act') and see that the land is restored to original assignee, since the land is a Government land, assigned to landless poor as house site, and submit further status report by the next date of hearing. 2. The only contention raised in the writ petition is that the learned Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to pass the aforesaid order or give direction. According to the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner, the order of the Civil Executing Court cannot be nullified by the Lokayukta, as it is not conferred with such power in any sense. 3. Learned Counsel for the Lokayukta has drawn our attention to the provisions of Section 3(4) of the Act and contends that the sale held by the Executing Court is null and void and it can be declared so. 4. In our view, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Lokayukta has to be overruled, in view of the fact that firstly the learned Lokayukta has no jurisdiction as it is not a complaint in relation to any public servant. 4. In our view, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Lokayukta has to be overruled, in view of the fact that firstly the learned Lokayukta has no jurisdiction as it is not a complaint in relation to any public servant. Going by the definition of public servant mentioned in Section 2(k) read with Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act, 1983, the Judges of the Court are not included and therefore, under the provisions of the said Act, it was not a legally entertain able complaint to take further action thereon. Moreover by virtue of provisions of Order XXI Rules 89 and 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), subject-matter of the complaint may be dealt with by the Executing Court alone. We, therefore, set out the provision of Order XXI Rules 89 and 90 of CPC hereunder: "89. Application to set aside sale on deposit- (1) Where immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree, any person claiming an interest in the property sold at the time of the sale or at the time of making the application, or acting for or in the interest of such person, may apply to have the sale set aside on his depositing in Court,- (a) for payment to the purchaser, a sum equal to five per cent of the purchase-money, and (b) for payment to the decree-holder, the amount specified in the proclamation of sale as that for the recovery of which the sale was ordered, less any amount which may, since the date of such proclamation of sale, have been received by the decree holder. (2) Where a person applies under Rule 90 to set aside the sale of his immovable property, he shall not, unless he withdraws his application, be entitled to make or prosecute an application under this rule. (3) Nothing in this rule shall relieve the judgment-debtor from any liability he may be under in respect of costs and interest not covered by the proclamation of sale. 90. (3) Nothing in this rule shall relieve the judgment-debtor from any liability he may be under in respect of costs and interest not covered by the proclamation of sale. 90. Application to set aside sale on ground of irregularity or fraud.--(1) Where any immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree, the decree-holder, or the purchaser, or any other person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets, or whose interests are affected by the sale, may apply to the Court to set aside the sale on the ground of a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it. (2) No sale shall be set aside on the ground of irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it unless, upon the facts proved, the Court is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or fraud. (3) No application to set aside a sale under this rule shall be entertained upon any ground which the applicant could have taken on or before the date on which the proclamation of sale was drawn up." 5. Under these provisions, even a third party can come and raise this question. 6. We are told by the learned Counsel for the 7th respondent that her client initially approached the Executing Court by filing an application challenging the aforesaid sale and that application was dismissed. However, on appeal being preferred, the matter has been remanded for adjudication by the Executing Court. 7. Under the circumstances, we think that the learned Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to decide this matter, and as such we are unable to uphold the order passed by it. 8. We accordingly set aside the impugned order. However, we make it clear that all points sought to be agitated by the 7th respondent before the Court, where the matter is pending, are kept open, and to be decided by the said Court in accordance with law. 9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.