Case Title: Additional Tahsildar & Another v. Urmila G. & Others
Case No.: SLP (C) No. 2652/2023
Dated On: 30 November 2023
Coram: Hon’ble JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH and JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
FACTS OF THE CASE
Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint with the Lokayukta narrating long history of the revenue record pertaining to the land with a grievance that the revenue record was not being corrected and for a direction be issued to the respondents therein for correction thereof and also to mutate the land in question in the name of legal heirs of late K. Gopalakrishnan Nair viz. (1) G. Urmila, (2) G. Ushakumari and (3) G. Krishnakumar. Upa Lokayukta, vide cryptic order dated 18.10.2016, directed Tehsildar, Varkala to rectify the mistake in the revenue records and also receive tax from the complainant. The order was to be complied with positively within one month and such compliance was to be reported on 16.11.2016. Aggrieved against the order, the appellants filed Writ Petition in the High Court, which was dismissed. The appellants have challenged the order passed by the High Court, whereby the Writ Petition filed against the order passed by Upa Lokayukta in the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 was dismissed.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
The Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961:
This act provides the statutory framework for the survey, demarcation, and maintenance of boundaries in Kerala. It outlines the authority and procedures for making and correcting entries in revenue records related to land.
The Kerala Survey and Boundaries Rules, 1964:
These rules supplement the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961, by providing detailed procedures for the implementation of the Act, including the correction of errors in survey records.
Section 12 of The Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999:
This section deals with the reports of Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta. It states that if the Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta is satisfied that an action or inaction has resulted in injustice or undue hardship to the complainant, they can recommend remedial actions to the competent authority. However, their recommendations are not binding orders but are meant to address maladministration.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the order passed by Upa Lokayukta was totally without jurisdiction while it issued positive directions for correction of revenue records and also to receive tax for which statutory authorities have been prescribed under the 1961 Act and 1964 Rules . Lokayukta is not a supervisory body above the statutory authorities in hierarchy under the aforesaid statutes. The jurisdiction given to Lokayukta was only to address the issue of maladministration, however, without addressing that issue in the order, it travelled beyond its jurisdiction to deal with the matter on merits and issued positive directions for correction of revenue records, hence the orders passed by the High Court as well as Upa Lokayukta deserve to be set aside.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
A perusal of the paper book shows that despite service, the respondents remained unrepresented on 18.08.2023 and also when the matter was finally heard and order was reserved on 31.10.2023.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The court went through the facts and the contentions of the appellant. The court analysed the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta as provided under Section 12 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999. It was noted that the Lokayukta’s role is primarily recommendatory and not supervisory over statutory authorities. The court referred to its previous judgements, particularly Sudha Devi K. v. District Collector and District Collector and Another v. Registrar, Kerala Lokayukta, which had established that the Lokayukta cannot issue binding orders but can only make recommendations to the competent authority. The Upa Lokayukta’s order dated 18.10.2016 directed the Tehsildar, Varkala, to rectify mistakes in the revenue records and to receive tax from the complainant, which the court found to be beyond the jurisdiction of the Upa Lokayukta. The statutory framework for correcting revenue records is governed by the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961, and the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Rules, 1964. The Upa Lokayukta’s directions effectively bypassed these statutory procedures and authorities. The court noted that there was no evidence that respondent No. 1 had pursued appropriate statutory remedies against the communication dated 19.04.2016, in which the Additional Tehsildar declined the request for rectification of the revenue records. The court pointed out that the proper course of action should have been to follow the remedies provided under the relevant statutes before approaching the Lokayukta. The court found that the order passed by the Upa Lokayukta on 18.10.2016 was issued without jurisdiction and thus could not be legally sustained. The order went beyond the recommendatory role of the Lokayukta by directing the rectification of revenue records. For the abovementioned reasons the court set aside the orders of the High Court as well as the Upa Lokayukta. Respondent no. 1 was advised to avail of appropriate remedies under the relevant statutes for the correction of the revenue records. The court allowed the appeal filed by the appellants. There was no order as to costs.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – PRATYASA MISHRA
click here to view the judgement
