Jurisdiction of Lokayukta in Revenue Records Correction: Supreme Court Verdict Explained
The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment concerning the jurisdiction of Lokayukta in directing corrections in revenue records. The case, involving the Additional Tahsildar and others against Urmila G. and others, highlighted the limits of Lokayukta’s authority and the necessity of following statutory procedures in revenue matters.
The judgment addressed whether the Kerala Upa Lokayukta had the power to issue direct orders for correction of revenue records, bypassing the remedies available under statutory law. The case ultimately reaffirmed the principle that Lokayukta’s role is recommendatory and does not extend to issuing mandatory directions on matters governed by other statutes.
Background of the Case
The case originated when the respondent, Urmila G., filed a complaint with the Lokayukta regarding an alleged mistake in the revenue records concerning a piece of land. She sought the correction of the land area recorded in Survey No. 584 and its mutation in the name of the legal heirs of late K. Gopalakrishnan Nair. The Upa Lokayukta, through an order dated 18.10.2016, directed the Tehsildar of Varkala to rectify the error in the records and to accept tax from the complainant for the corrected land area.
The Additional Tahsildar challenged this order before the High Court of Kerala through a writ petition, arguing that the Upa Lokayukta had overstepped its jurisdiction. However, the High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Lokayukta’s order. This led to an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Appellants
The appellants, represented by the Additional Tahsildar, contended:
- The Upa Lokayukta’s order was issued without jurisdiction as it directly interfered with revenue records correction, which falls under statutory authorities established under the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961, and the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Rules, 1964.
- The role of Lokayukta is limited to investigating maladministration and making recommendations. It does not have the authority to issue binding orders for correction of official records.
- The respondent had not exhausted the statutory remedies available under revenue law before approaching the Lokayukta, making the complaint procedurally invalid.
Arguments of the Respondents
The respondents, who remained unrepresented during the final hearings, had initially argued that:
- The delay and inaction of revenue authorities in correcting the land records amounted to maladministration, justifying the intervention of the Lokayukta.
- The Upa Lokayukta’s order was necessary to ensure fairness and prevent further hardship to the legal heirs.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court analyzed the scope of the Lokayukta’s powers under the Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, particularly Section 12, which states that the Lokayukta can only make recommendations to the competent authority rather than issuing binding orders. The Court also examined previous rulings by the Kerala High Court, which consistently held that the Lokayukta does not have the jurisdiction to issue direct orders affecting statutory functions of other authorities.
Key observations by the Supreme Court included:
- The Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta are not appellate or supervisory authorities over statutory bodies. Their jurisdiction is limited to making recommendations in cases of maladministration.
- In previous cases, such as Sudha Devi K. v. District Collector and District Collector v. Registrar, Kerala Lokayukta, the Kerala High Court had ruled that the Lokayukta could not interfere with matters where statutory remedies were available.
- In the present case, the Upa Lokayukta’s order was a direct directive rather than a recommendation, which exceeded its jurisdiction.
Key Excerpt from the Judgment
In clarifying the jurisdictional limits of the Lokayukta, the Supreme Court stated:
“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 Court further emphasized that statutory remedies under revenue laws must be exhausted before seeking intervention from an authority like the Lokayukta.
Final Judgment and Directions
Based on these findings, the Supreme Court issued the following directives:
- The Upa Lokayukta’s order dated 18.10.2016 was declared legally unsustainable and set aside.
- The Kerala High Court’s judgment upholding the Upa Lokayukta’s order was also overturned.
- The respondent (Urmila G.) was granted liberty to seek correction of revenue records by following appropriate remedies under the relevant statutory provisions.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that while the Lokayukta plays a vital role in addressing maladministration, it must operate within its legally defined boundaries. The judgment sets a precedent clarifying that administrative tribunals such as the Lokayukta cannot bypass statutory procedures governing land and revenue records.
Petitioner Name: Additional Tahsildar & Another.Respondent Name: Urmila G. & Others.Judgment By: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Rajesh Bindal.Place Of Incident: Kerala.Judgment Date: 30-11-2023.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: additional-tahsildar-vs-urmila-g.-&-others-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-30-11-2023.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Judgment by Vikram Nath
See all petitions in Judgment by Rajesh Bindal
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments
See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
