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. The jurisdiction given to Lokayukta was only to address the 3 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.
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. 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. Direction may be given to the 4 Respondent to mutate the above mentioned property in Sy.
Insofar as the jurisdiction of Lokayukta is concerned a Division Bench of the High Court in Sudha Devi K.
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.
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.
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.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Case Title: ADDITIONAL TAHSIDLAR Vs. URMILA G.
Case Number: C.A. No.-007938-007938 / 2023
