WP(C) No. 28975 of 2010 (V) – The District Collector, Collectorate, Kudappanakkunnu, Thiruvananthapuram; Additional Tahsildar, Fort Taluk Office; Village Officer, Manacaud; The State represented by Chief Secretary v. P. Sasidharan Nair and Kerala Lok Ayukta

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/18TH KARTHIKA, 1938** ## **WP(C).No. 28975 of 2010 (V)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): -----------------------** **1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **4. THE STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SANTHOSH PETER.** **RESPONDENT(S):** **---------------------------** **1. P. SASIDHARAN NAIR, S/O PADMANABHA PILLAI, SIVA MANDIRAM, C M C LANE, KOOTTATTUVILA, NALANCHIRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 015.** **2. THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA, LEGISLATURE COMPLEX, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.** **R1 BY ADVS. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN, SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED, SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN, SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** rs. ## **WP(C).No. 28975 of 2010 (V)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** - **EXT.P1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 17/05/2010. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE REPORT.** **EXT.P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20/05/2010.** - **EXT.P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08/06/2010.** - **EXT.P6 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **EXT.P7 COPY OF THE DETAILED STATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXT.P8 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05/08/2010. EXT.P9 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/09/2010.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-** **EXT.R1A COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.2280/1976 OF THE S.R.O., SASTHAMANGALAM.** **EXT.R1B COPY OF THE BASIC TAX PAID RECEIPT NO.0159625 DATED 02/09/2010 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHETTIVILAKAM VILLAGE.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** rs. ## **P.V.ASHA, J.** ## **W.P.(C) No.28975 of 2010** ## **Dated this the 9[th] day of November, 2016** ## **JUDGMENT** Ext.P8 order of the Lokayuktha in a complaint filed by the 1[st] respondent is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The 1[st] respondent filed Ext.P1 complaint alleging that his vehicle, a tipper lorry was seized by the Village Officer, without any authority under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Act and Wet Land Act and Rules. The vehicle was seized on 17.5.2010. The District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram passed an order dated 8.6.2010 informing the petitioner that the tipper lorry was seized by the Village Officer, as it was found to have indulged in reclamation of paddy land and directed the 1[st] respondent to remit a sum of Rs.6,22,500/(Rupees Six lakhs twenty two thousand five hundred only) in view of confiscation of his vehicle under section 20(1). Along with the tipper lorry of the 1[st] respondent a JCB also was seized and a common order was passed by the District Collector as per Ext.P5 order dated 8.6.2010. It was at that stage that the 1[st] respondent and the owner of the JCB approached the Lokayuktha filing separate complaints. 3. On receipt of notice from the Lokayuktha, the petitioners submitted Ext.P7 statement of facts, stating that the vehicles were W.P.(C) No.28975 of 2010 **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** seized in presence of SI of Police, Fort, as it was seen that wet land owned by Sri.Najeeb, Nizar Ahmed and Nazeema were being reclaimed using these vehicles. It was also stated that there were mass petitions from the agricultural labourers of Ambalathara in Manacaud Village complaining the activities of the land mafiya in reclaiming the land and selling it as small plots on account of which the properties therein were being flooded rendering them unable to undertake agricultural activities in their farms. 4. It was stated that the vehicles were seized by the Police authorities from the site where the nilams were being reclaimed. It was further stated that in view of the fact that there were 121 Villages and 4 Talukas in Thiruvananthapuram District under supervision of the Sub Collector, Thiruvananthapuram and it was not possible to visit each site where conversion of the paddy lands is going on, by the said officer himself, directions were given to the Sub Inspector of Police, Fort and Village Officer, Manacaud to prevent large scale filling of wet land. Therefore, it is stated that on receipt of the mahazar, the District Collector issued orders under section 20(1) of the Act, directing the 1[st] respondent and the owner of the other vehicles to remit the amount as directed in Ext.P6 in order to avoid confiscation of the vehicles. 5. The Lokayuktha considered both the complaints together and W.P.(C) No.28975 of 2010 **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** found that the Village Officer was not competent to seize the vehicle, in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act and Rules. Lokayuktha found that under section 12 of the Act, the Government could appoint officers of Revenue Department as authorised officers to function and implement the provisions of the Act. But it was not possible for the District Collector or Sub Collector to authorise new officer who does not come under the category of officers mentioned in section 19 for implementation of the provisions under the Act. The objection by the petitioners, pointing out that there is an appellate remedy available for the complainant, was repelled by the Lokayuktha observing that under section 24(2) of the Lokayuktha Act, the powers of the Lokayuktha are in addition to the provisions of any other enactment which provides for other statutory remedies. Accordingly, it was held that seizure of vehicle by the Village Officer and consequential order of the District Collector cannot be sustained; Lokayuktha directed the petitioners herein to release the vehicles in both petitions and posted the cases for compliance to 13.8.2010. 6. It was at this stage that the writ petition was filed. The 1[st] respondent has filed a counter affidavit justifying the order passed by the Lokayuktha pointing out that the action of the Village Officer was W.P.(C) No.28975 of 2010 **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** without authority. 7. I heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent. 8. The learned Government Pleader relying on the judgment of this court in _**State of Kerala v. John Joseph** [2011 (3) KLT 23]_ argued that the Lokayuktha ought not have dealt with the complaint, in the absence of any allegation relating to maladministration. At the same time the learned counsel for the respondents relied on the judgment of this court in _**State of Kerala v. Upa Lokayukta** [2010 (4) KLT SN 63]_ where this court approved the order passed by the Lokayuktha when orders were not passed on an application for refund of road tax, observing that refusal to pass orders would amount to maladministration and the complaint which pointed out the injustice done to the petitioner could be entertained by the Lokayuktha. 9. The judgment of the Division Bench in _**State of Kerala Vs. John Joseph**_ relied on by the learned Government Pleader was in respect of an order passed by the District Registrar relating to the remission of stamp duty under section 45(B). This court after referring to section 7 of Kerala Lokayuktha Act examined the jurisdiction of the Lokayuktha. Referring to the definitions provided for the expressions grievance, allegation and maladministration in section 2(h), (b) and W.P.(C) No.28975 of 2010 **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** (k) respectively, this court found that the expression “allegation” necessarily involves an improper motive in law such as corruption, favouritism, nepotism etc. whereas “grievance” is a claim that a person sustained injustice or undue hardship as a consequence of maladministration and maladministration as defined under the Act should involve unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory act and there should have been wilful negligence or undue delay in taking such action apart from administrative procedure involving undue delay. In the case considered by the Division Bench of this court, it was found that the complaint filed before the Lokayuktha did not contain any allegation or grievance within the meanings of those expressions. 10. Ext.P1 is the complaint filed before the Lokayuktha. The said complaint does not refer to any Act of maladministration other than the statement that the Village Officer did not have any authority to seize the vehicle. Ext.P8 order passed by the Lokayuktha also did not arrive at any finding as to the maladministration on the part of the Village Officer. 11. Therefore even though the availability of statutory appellate remedy will not bar entertaining of a complaint by the Lokayuktha, as long as the complaint in this case did not contain any grievance or W.P.(C) No.28975 of 2010 **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** allegation, as defined under the Act, the Lokayuktha did not have any authority to entertain the complaint so as to declare that the orders passed by the District Collector and the action of the Village Officer are illegal and to direct release of vehicles. In the above circumstances, Ext.P8 is set aside. It is seen that the vehicle was already released on the basis of the interim order passed by this court. Writ petition is allowed accordingly. sd/- **P.V.ASHA JUDGE** rkc