Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently ruled that Kerala's Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta have only recommendatory jurisdiction and they cannot issue any positive direction for correction of revenue records.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal set aside the orders passed by Kerala High Court and Upa Lokayukta for a direction issued to Tehsildar, Varkala to rectify the mistake in the revenue records and also receive tax from the complainant. 

Counsel for the appellants Additional Tehsildar and another 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 Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act and 1964 Rules. 

Lokayukta is not a supervisory body above the statutory authorities in hierarchy under the 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, the counsel submitted.

Hence the orders passed by the High Court as well as Upa Lokayukta deserve to be set aside, he said.     

The court referred to Section 12 of the Kerala Lokayukta Act, 1999, which dealt 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," the bench said.

Going through the facts of the matter, the bench noted that the grievance raised was regarding the correction of the error in the revenue records of the property. The complaint also mentioned that the request of the respondent for rectification of the defect in the revenue records was declined by the Additional Tehsildar. However, nothing was mentioned if any further action was taken by the respondent to challenge the communication. 

The court noted that insofar as the jurisdiction of Lokayukta was concerned, a division bench of the high court in 'Sudha Devi K. v District Collector (2017) had opined that in terms of Section 12(1) of the 1999 Act, 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. 

The high court had then said that a Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta is not appellate or supervisory authority over other competent forums created under different statutes, as each of those statutes provide their 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. This judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court was referred to in the case in hand, however, the same was ignored, the bench said.

In another decision 'District Collector and Another v Registrar, Kerala Lokayukta, Legislative Complex and others' (2023), the division bench of the high court reiterated the law laid down in the Sudha Devi K case. 

"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 statute provides for hierarchy of remedies, those should have been resorted to. The action of the Lokayukta was found to be without jurisdiction," the high court had said.

In the case at hand, the top court bench found that there was nothing on record to show that the respondent had either availed of any appropriate remedy against the Communication by Tehsildar in which the request for rectification of record was rejected or any other appropriate remedy for correction thereof.

"In our view, in the 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 bench said.

The court, thus, declared that the order passed by the high court as well as the Upa Lokayukta could not be legally sustained and the respondent, if so advised, may avail of any appropriate remedy under the relevant statute for correction of the revenue records.

Case Title: Additional Tehsildar & Another Vs Urmila G & Others