Additional Tahsildar & Anr. vs Urmila G. & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

30 November 2023

Case No.

Civil Appeal No(S) 7938 of 2023

Result

Allowed

Bench

Vikram Nath, Rajesh Bindal

Citation

[2023] 13 S.C.R. 1090 : 2023 INSC 1044

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:

Headnote

Held: s. 12 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 – On facts, the writ Petition was filed 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 rectification 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.

OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED

ORDER AND APPEARANCES

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 filed against the order4 passed by Upa Lokayukta5 in the complaint6 filed by respondent No. 1 was dismissed. 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

View Subscription Plans →