ORDER : (Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.) In this batch of writ petitions, petitioners have called in question the orders passed by the Lokayukta, Andhra Pradesh, issuing directions to lodge criminal complaints before the Additional Director General of Police, CB CID, A.P; as such, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. In view of the nature of the order that is being passed in this batch of writ petitions, facts stated in each of the writ petitions are not being referred. The main ground of challenge to the order passed by the Lokayukta is that before directing to lodge criminal complaints against the petitioners basing upon the report of the District Collector or any other authority, which was called for by the Lokayukta, no opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have referred to the law laid down by the erstwhile High Court of A.P. in S.Jagadeswarv. The Lok Ayukta of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and ors.– 1996 (4) ALT 1072 , and that of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments-I) and others–2014 (4) AT 645 and Dr. R.G. Sunil Reddy v. A.P. Lokayukta – (2015) 6 ALD 302 ,to argue that before recommending initiation of either departmental action or criminal action, service of notice and opportunity of hearing to the public servants is mandatory. 4. It is also argued that the nature of complaint lodged before the Lokayukta invoking its jurisdiction to recommend action against public servants, is not within the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta, as the same pertains to private land dispute between the parties. 5. Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Act, 1983 (for short, “the 1983 Act”) provides for procedure in respect of investigations. Section 10(1)(b) thereof provides that where the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta after making such preliminary verification as he deems fit proposes to conduct any investigation under the Act, he shall afford to the public servant concerned an opportunity to offer his comments on such complaint or statement. Section 10(1)(b) thereof provides that where the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta after making such preliminary verification as he deems fit proposes to conduct any investigation under the Act, he shall afford to the public servant concerned an opportunity to offer his comments on such complaint or statement. After following the procedure prescribed under Sections 10 and 11 of the 1983 Act, the Lokayukta is empowered to submit report as mentioned under Section 12, which provides that, if, after investigation in respect of any action under the Act, the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta is satisfied that such allegation is substantiated either wholly or partly, he shall by report in writing, communicate his findings and recommendations along with the relevant documents, materials or other evidence to the competent authority, who shall examine the report and take action based on the recommendation. Thus, the statutory mandate under Section 10(1)(b) is to afford an opportunity of hearing if the Lokayukta proposes to conduct investigation. 6. It is the specific contention of the petitioners in all the writ petitions that before passing the orders impugned directing to lodge criminal complaint, the Lokayukta has not afforded them any opportunity of hearing. This statement in the writ affidavits has not been controverted by the respondents. 7. In view of the above and considering the violation of principles of natural justice as well as the provisions contained in Section 10(1)(b) of the 1983 Act, we are of the considered view that the impugned orders are not sustainable, which deserve to be, and are hereby, set aside reserving liberty in favour of the Lokayukta that if the said authority decides to initiate proceedings afresh, it may do so by following the provisions contained in the 1983 Act and the Rules made thereunder. In such eventuality, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise all questions including jurisdiction of the Lokayukta to entertain the complaints. If the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta is challenged by the petitioners, the Lokayukta shall decide the question of jurisdiction before passing final orders. 8. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.