Additional Tahsidlar vs Urmila G.

2023 INSC 1044 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2023 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2652 OF 2023)

ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR & ANOTHER … Appellant(s)

VERSUS URMILA G. & OTHERS … Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

RAJESH BINDAL, J.

Leave granted.

2. Despite service, no one had appeared for the respondents.

3. The appellants have challenged the order1 passed by the

High Court2, whereby the Writ Petition3 filed against the order4 passed

by Upa Lokayukta5 in the complaint6 filed by respondent No. 1 was

dismissed.

Signature Not Verified

1 by Order dated 10.10.2022.

Digitally signed SONIA BHASIN Date: 2023.12.01 2 High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam 18:31:31 IST Reason:

3

Writ Petition (C) No. 39299 of 2016 4 Order dated 18.10.2016 5 Kerala Upa Lokayukta 6 Complaint No. 866 of 2016 1

4. Briefly the facts, as available on record, are that 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.

5. 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 Act7 and 1964 Rules8. 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

7 The Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 8 The Kerala Survey and Boundaries Rules, 1964 2 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.

6. 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.

7. Section 12 of the 1999 Act deals with the reports of

Lokayukta. It provides that in case Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta is

satisfied with any action or inaction of the party which has resulted in

injustice or undue hardship to the complainant, it shall by a report in

writing, recommend to the competent authority to remedy such

injustice or hardship.

8. From the facts, available on record, and a perusal of the

complaint which was filed by respondent No. 1 before Lokayukta, it is

evident that the grievance raised was regarding correction of the error

in the revenue records of the property in Survey No. 584 (re-surveyed

in Sy No. BL-102/03) and also to mutate the same in the name of legal

heirs of K. Gopalakrishnan Nair viz. (1) G. Urmila, (2) G. Ushakumari

and (3) G. Krishnakumar. It was pleaded that inaction on the part of the 3 respondents in the complaint in rectifying the mistake amounted to

maladministration which should be investigated by Lokayukta. The

complaint was filed in June 2016. Long history pertaining to the land

was given while pointing out the errors in the revenue records. The

complaint also mentioned that the request of respondent No.1 for

rectification of the defect in the revenue records was declined by the

Additional Tehsildar vide order dated 19.04.2016. However, nothing

was mentioned if any further action was taken by respondent No. 1 to

challenge the aforesaid communication. The relevant claim in the

aforesaid complaint filed before the Lokayukta is extracted below:

“1. Direction may be given to the Respondents to

rectify the error in the Revenue records in respect of the

property in Survey No.584 of Varkala owned and possessed

by late K. Gopalakrishnan Nair by correcting it as 3.35 Ares

instead of 2.24 Ares.

2. Direction may be given to the 4th Respondent to

mutate the above mentioned property in Sy. No.584 (Re-

surveyed in Sy. No.BL-102/03) in the name of the legal heirs of

late K. Gopalakrishnan Nair viz. (1) G. Urmila, (2) G.

Ushakumari and (3) G. Krishnakumar.”

4

9. Insofar as the jurisdiction of Lokayukta is concerned a

Division Bench of the High Court in Sudha Devi K. v. District

Collector9 had opined that in terms of Section 12(1) of the 1999 Act10,

Lok Ayukta was not competent to issue positive direction. He can only

submit a report with the concerned authority with its

recommendations. They only have recommendatory jurisdiction. A

Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta is not appellate or supervisory authority

over other competent forums created under different statutes, as each

of those statues provide its own remedial steps such as appeal, revision

etc. The parties need to follow that procedure. The 1999 Act is not

meant to override those procedures. The aforesaid judgment of the

Division Bench of the High Court was referred to in the case in hand,

however, the same was ignored.

10. In a subsequent judgment in District Collector and

Another v. Registrar, Kerala Lokayukta, Legislative Complex and

others11, the Division Bench of the High Court reiterated the law laid

down in Sudha Devi K. case (supra). It was opined that the

complainants therein had not availed the statutory remedies regarding

rectification of the mistakes in the revenue record. When a relevant

9 2017 SCC OnLine Ker 1264 10 The Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 11 AIR 2023 Ker 97 5 statute provides for hierarchy of remedies, those should have been

resorted to. The action of the Lokayukta was found to be without

jurisdiction.

11. In our view, in the aforesaid two Judgments of the High

Court, the provisions of the 1999 Act were rightly interpreted.

However, in the case in hand, the direction issued by the Upa

Lokayukta for correction of the revenue records was upheld, which

goes totally beyond the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta. The direction

given by Upa Lokayukta in its summary order is extracted below:

“3. In the circumstances, I direct Smt. Saajitha Beegum Tahsildar, Varkala who is holding full additional charge of the Additional Tahsildar to rectify the mistake in re-survey records and direct the Village Officer concerned, to receive tax from the complainant for the balance 1.11 Ares of property as well which corresponds to 5.18 cents for the period from 2010 to 16 giving credit to Rs.83/- that is already paid under Ext.P5 for a portion of the property by the complainant and also to effect necessary corrections in the revenue records showing the said total extent of 8.274 cents corresponding to 3.35 Ares of property comprised in old Sy. No. 584 showing the title thereof as being with the complainant’s predecessor in re-Sy. No. 3 of Block No. 102 rectifying the mistake brought in by the

6 revenue authorities. This shall be done positively in one month. Comply and report on 16.11.2016.”

12. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent no.1

had either availed of any appropriate remedy against the

Communication dated 19.04.2016 vide which the request for

rectification of record was rejected or any other appropriate remedy

for correction thereof.

13. For the reasons, mentioned above, in our view the order

passed by the High Court as well as the Upa Lokayukta cannot be

legally sustained. The same are accordingly set aside. Respondent

no.1, if so advised, may avail of any appropriate remedy under the

relevant statute for correction of the revenue records.

14. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order

as to costs.

…..……………..J (VIKRAM NATH)

…………………..J (RAJESH BINDAL)

New Delhi November 30, 2023.

7