The Tahsildar, Kochi Taluk, Kochi v. Kerala Lok Ayukta and Kochu Kandu Thankamani

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
Judgment Date: 2014-06-20
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

The Tahsildar, Kochi Taluk, Kochi

Respondents

The Kerala Lok Ayukta, Thiruvananthapuram
Kochu Kandu Thankamani, Pullarkkat House, Moothakunam P.O., Via North Paravur, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Jibu P.Thomas (Government Pleader)

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Sri Deepu Thankan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges Ext.P3 order of the Kerala Lok Ayukta directing the State to issue patta for about 19.27 ares of land assigned in 1976 to the 2nd respondent under LA 262/1976, in Sy. No.1491/1 of Elankunnapuzha (now Puthuvype village). The 2nd respondent claimed entitlement to patta and pursued relief before the Lok Ayukta after repeated requests to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar contended that though the assignment was issued in 1976, the conditions required payment of land value and charges within three months and that the 2nd respondent was not in possession; evidence suggested her family possessed 9.91 ares of other land in Moothakunnam. The Lok Ayukta, relying on the assignment order, directed issuance of patta, holding that non-issuance could not continue and that cancellation of the assignment had not been effected under Rule 8(3). The State challenged the Lok Ayukta’s order, arguing Lok Ayukta lacks adjudicatory powers and that irregularities in the original assignment should have been addressed by cancellation or other remedies. The Court noted the inaction by the Tahsildar but found the assignment not cancelled, hence upheld the Lok Ayukta’s directive. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and the Lok Ayukta’s order was upheld.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Land Assignment RulesRule 8(3) of Kerala Land Assignment Rules

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the land assignment to the 2nd respondent was irregular under LA 262/1976 and that directing patta would be beyond the Lok Ayukta's powers; the patta not being issued over a long period cannot be cured by a patta order; if there are irregularities in the assignment, cancellation under Rule 8(3) is the proper remedy; the Lok Ayukta lacks adjudicatory power to issue binding orders against public authorities.

Contentions of Respondents

The 1st respondent Lok Ayukta has directed patta to be issued to remedy the grievance; the Government Pleader contends Lok Ayukta has limited adjudicatory powers per Bernard (State of Kerala v. Bernard) and that the matter concerns investigation and remedial recommendations rather than binding orders; the petitioner's challenge to the power of Lok Ayukta hinges on inaction by the Tahsildar and the assignment not having been cancelled.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Kerala v. Bernard	2003 (3) KLT 254	Mentioned Only	Cited to illustrate the limitation of Lok Ayukta's adjudicatory powers; used as persuasive authority rather than binding precedent in the present judgment.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI** **FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/30TH JYAISHTA, 1936** ## **WP(C).No. 6445 of 2008 (P)** **---------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER :** - **--------------------** **THE TAHSILDAR, KOCHI TALUK, KOCHI.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JIBU.P.THOMAS** ## **RESPONDENTS :** - **-------------------------** **1. THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. KOCHU KANDU THANKAMANI, PULLARKKAT HOUSE, MOOTHAKUNNAM P.O., VIA. NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM.** - **R2 BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-05-2014 ,THE COURT ON 20-06-2014 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. ## **WP(C).No. 6445 of 2008 (P)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:** **--------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT.** **EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT.** **EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN COMPLAINT NO.742/07 DATED 13.11.2007.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:** **-----------------------------------------** **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE.** Msd. ## A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) No.6445 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20[th] day of June, 2014 ## JUDGMENT The State has come up with this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the Kerala Lok Ayuktha directing them to issue patta in respect of the land assigned to the 2[nd] respondent within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 2. The 2[nd] respondent approached the 1[st] respondent Kerala Lok Ayuktha with Complaint No.742/2007 alleging that an extent of 19.27 ares of land comprised in Sy. No.1491/1 in Elankunnapuzha village (now Puthuvype village) was assigned to her as per LA 262/1976. However, the patta was not issued to her in spite of several requests. Thereafter, the 1[st] respondent by impugned order directed to issue patta. The petitioner alleges that the said order is unsustainable as it goes beyond the powers of Lok Ayuktha. The petitioner further alleges that the WP(C).6445/08 ## **-:2:-** land assignment made in favour of the 2[nd] respondent complainant was totally irregular and was in violation of the provisions of the Act. According to them, even if any assignment was made it was liable to be cancelled as per the conditions of the assignment order. 3. Arguments have been heard. 4. The 2[nd] respondent was constrained to approach the 1[st] respondent since several requests were made by her to the Tahsildar concerned for the issuance of patta in the light of the order in LA 262/1976 assigning 19.27 ares of land comprised in Sy. No.1491/1 of Puthuvype village (erstwhile Elankunnapuzha village), could not evoke any positive response. Later she approached the Chief Minister's Public Contact Programme and in response, the District Collector informed that suitable measures would be taken. But, till now the patta in respect of the property in question has not been issued. 5. On receipt of notice from the 1[st] respondent, the Tahsildar, Kochi filed a counter affidavit before the 1[st] WP(C).6445/08 **-:3:-** respondent wherein it was stated that though the assignment order was issued on January 1976, payment of land value, survey charges etc were made only in the year 1977. As per the condition in para 14 of the order of assignment, the value of land as well as trees has to be remitted within three months from the date of sanctioning registry otherwise the registry is liable to be cancelled; it was contended. It was further contended that on enquiry it was revealed that the 2[nd] respondent is not in possession of the land in question and that the family members of the 2[nd] respondent were in possession of 9.91 ares of land comprised in other survey numbers in Moothakunnam village, Paravur taluk. It was also contended that the complaint is a retired teacher having annual income of ₹68,996/-. Therefore, the stand taken by the State was that the 2[nd] respondent was financially sound and was not eligible for assignment on concessional rate. 6. It is evident from the impugned order that the 1[st] respondent Lok Ayuktha has gone through the assignment order WP(C).6445/08 **-:4:-** which was marked as Ext.C1 in the complaint. A sum of 115/-₹ was seen ordered towards the land value, survey and demarcation charges of the said land. Copy of the receipt evidencing the payment was produced as Ext.C1 before the 1[st] respondent. 7. The stand taken by the petitioner is that there were certain irregularities in the proceedings initiated for assignment of land in question. This contention was not acceptable to the 1[st] respondent. The 2[nd] respondent who got assignment of the Government land in 1976 was told after a lapse of so many years that the procedure followed for the assignment of land is irregular and, therefore, she is not entitled to get patta. The petitioner State has no case that the 2[nd] respondent was responsible for the alleged irregularities. 8. It was rightly found by the 1[st] respondent that had there been a case that the order of assignment was liable to be cancelled, the procedures for cancellation of the assessment should have been initiated then and there. As the order of WP(C).6445/08 **-:5:-** assignment has not been cancelled under Rule 8(3) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that the 2[nd] respondent is not entitled to get patta. 9. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the 1[st] respondent does not have any adjudicatory power. In support of the argument, the learned Government Pleader invited my attention to the decision of a Division Bench in State of Kerala v. Bernard [2003 (3) KLT 254]. Of course, the Division Bench observed that the Lok Ayuktha is not empowered to make any binding order which is enforceable as against the public servants whose action is under investigation or the competent authority or the State Government. In other cases, his role is confined to investigating the grievance, to satisfy himself as to its correctness, and thereafter recommending the remedial measures to the competent authority. 10. Here, in this case, there was inaction on the part of the Tahsildar to issue patta consequent to the assignment order in the name of the 2[nd] respondent which was obtained long back. WP(C).6445/08 ## **-:6:-** The same has not been cancelled so far, for reason best known to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the definite view that the 1[st] respondent was perfectly justified in commanding the authority concerned to issue patta in terms of the order of assignment under the land assignment proceedings. Therefore, the writ petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE krj