ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR & ANR versus URMILA G. & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 13 S.C.R. 1090 · Decided: 30-11-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR & ANR.
v.
URMILA G. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No(S) 7938 of 2023)
NOVEMBER 30, 2023
[VIKRAM NATH AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the Lok Ayukta has jurisdiction to 
issue positive directions for correction of revenue records.
Kerela Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 – s. 12 – Reports of Lok Ayukta – 
Jurisdiction of Lokayukta – Directions by Upa-Lokayukta for correction 
of revenue records – Sustainability:
Held: s. 12 provides that in case Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta is 
satisfi ed 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 
– On facts, the writ Petition was fi led by the Additional Tahsildar against 
an order of the Upa Lokayukta that had directed the correction of revenue 
records of the property of the complainant – Direction issued by the Upa 
Lokayukta for correction of the revenue records which was upheld by the 
High Court, goes totally beyond the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta – Nothing 
on record to show that the complainant had either availed of any appropriate 
remedy against the Communication vide which the request for rectifi cation 
of record was rejected or any other appropriate remedy for correction thereof 
– Thus, the order passed by the High Court, as well as the Upa Lokayukta 
not legally sustainable and is set aside. [Para 11-13]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Sudha Devi K. v. District Collector 2017 SCC OnLine Ker 1264; 
District Collector and Another v. Registrar, Kerala Lokayukta, Legislative 
Complex and others AIR 2023 Ker 97 – approved.
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 1090 : 2023 INSC 1044
1090
1091
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7938 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.2022 of the High Court of 
Kerala at Ernakulam in WP (C) No.39299 of 2016.
Appearances:
Harshad V. Hameed, Dileep Poolakkot, Subhash Chandran K. R., 
Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Dr. Prahlad Narayan Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
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 fi led against the order4  passed by Upa 
Lokayukta5 in the complaint6 fi led by respondent No. 1 was dismissed.
4. Briefl y the facts, as available on record, are that respondent No. 1 
fi led 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 
1 
Order dated 10.10.2022.
2 
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
3 
Writ Petition (C) No. 39299 of 2016
4 
Order dated 18.10.2016
5 
Kerala Upa Lokayukta
6 
Complaint No. 866 of 2016
ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR & ANR. v. URMILA G. & ORS.
1092 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
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 fi led 
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 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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.