W.P.(C) No. 39299 of 2016

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR`** ## **`&`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY`** ## **`WEDNESDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 18TH ASWINA, 1944`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 39299 OF 2016`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1ADDITIONAL TAHSIDLAR TALUK OFFICE, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2THE VILLAGE OFFICER VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1URMILA G., GEETHANJALI, JANARDHANAPURAM, VARKALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 141. 2A.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR ADDTIIONAL TAHSILDAR (RETD), T.C.13/1931-1/, KRISHNA KRUPA, KOIKKAL LANE, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011. 3SANAL KUMAR HEAD SURVEYOR, VARKALA TALUK OFFICE, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 141. 4MANU SURVEYOR, VARKALA TALUK OFFICE, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 141. 5KERALA LOK AYUKTHA LEGISLATIVE COMPLEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.09.2022, THE COURT ON 10.10.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **W.P.(C)No.39299 of 2016** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 10[th] day of October, 2022 ## **Shaji P.Chaly, J.** This writ petition is filed by the State Officials, who are respondents in Complaint No.866/2016-C on the files of the Kerala LokAyukta, challenging its Exhibit P9 order dated 18.10.2016, whereby, after taking into account the factual circumstances and the documents made available for consideration, the Upa LokAyukta has passed the following order: “2. The Tahsildar who is holding additional charge of Additional Tahsildar submits today that 2.47 cents is shown in re-Sy records as Thodu puramboke and 2.71 cents is shown as in possession of others, thus making a total of 5.18 cents which corresponds to 1.11 Ares and therefore tax cannot be received from the complainant. The Tahsildar when asked, states that by re-Sy a registered holding cannot be converted into puramboke land and submits that probably 2.47 cents is shown as puramboke as a thodu is running through the property. For that reason the property could not be classified as puramboke land. With respect to another 2.71 cents according to her it is not in possession of the complainant **W.P.(C)No.39299 of 2016** **3** but in possession of some others. As per the re-Sy records it is not for the re survey authorities to create records contrary to the revenue records and say that a particular extent is in possession of others. If at all a portion of the land which belonged to the predecessor of the complainant is in the possession of others, it is upto him to file appropriate suit for recovery and no assistance need be rendered to establish possession by the re-survey authorities or revenue authorities. 3. In the circumstances direct Smt. Saajitha Beegum Tahsildar, Varkala who is holding full additional charge of the Additional Tahsildar to rectify the mistake in re-survey records and direct the Village Officer concerned, to receive tax from the complainant for the balance 1.11 Ares of property as well which corresponds to 5.18 cents for the period from 2010 to 16 giving credit to Rs.83/- that is already paid under Ext. P5 for a portion of the property by the complainant and also to effect necessary corrections in the revenue records showing the said total extent of 8.274 cents corresponding to 3.35 Ares of property comprised in old Sy. No. 584 showing the title thereof as being with the complainant's predecessor in reSy No. 3 of Block No. 102 rectifying the mistake brought in by the revenue authorities. This shall be done positively in one month. Comply and report on 16.11 2016.” ## 2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: **4** ## **W.P.(C)No.39299 of 2016** The complainant/1[st] respondent herein has filed a complaint before the LokAyukta contending that himself and his brother and sister are the only legal heirs of their father Gopalakrishnan Nair, who expired on 31.03.1988 and his wife, who expired on 30.06.2012. According to the 1[st] respondent, they are the owners of 10 cents of property owned by her father, who had purchased the said land as per document No.3192/1971. It was further submitted that the original patta is still continuing in the name of late Gopalakrishnan Nair and the thandaper number in the revenue records, even after the death of Gopalakrishnan Nair is not changed and the tax receipt was regularly issued in the name of late Gopalakrishnan Nair. It was also pointed out that the tax was paid for 10 cents. However, when re-survey was conducted, it was found that there was a shortage in the extent of the property and as per the re-survey, the original extent of patta land was reduced to 3.35 ares in Sy.No.584 belonging to the 1[st] respondent and others. The said land was notified for acquisition but no action was initiated further on the ground **W.P.(C)No.39299 of 2016** **5** that the said proceedings are stayed by the High Court. It was further contended that hence the total extent of property measuring 3.35 ares continued to be as the registered land in the name of the father of the complainant, late Gopalakrishnan Nair. However, when the 1[st] respondent and other legal heirs approached the Village Officer for remitting the land tax, the Village Officer refused to accept the land tax for the entire extent of the registered land of 3.35 ares (8.27 cents) but issued the tax receipt for 2.24 ares (5.53 cents). Therefore, according to the 1[st] respondent, there is no justification in reducing the patta land measuring 3.35 ares to 2.24 ares. Anyhow, a rectification application was filed before the Additional Tahsildar, which was pending consideration. As there was undue delay in finalising the rectification application, a complaint was filed before the District Collector on 10.02.2016, consequent to which, the District Collector forwarded the application on the same day with a direction to the Additional Tahsildar, Varkala to dispose of the petition within 15 days. However, according to the 1[st] respondent, no ## **W.P.(C)No.39299 of 2016** **6** action was taken and, therefore, he approached the LokAyukta alleging maladministration on the part of the petitioners in the writ petition. 3. Along with the complaint, the 1[st] respondent has produced various documents in order to establish the title to the property and sought for a direction to the petitioners to rectify the error in the revenue records in respect of the property situated in Sy.No.584 of Varkala Village, owned and possessed by late K.Gopalakrishnan Nair by correcting it as 3.35 ares instead of 2.24 ares and for a further direction to the Village Officer, Varkala to mutate the property in the name of the legal heirs of late K.Gopalakrishnan Nair. 4. The Additional Tahsildar has filed a statement before the LokAyukta, which is produced as Exhibit R1(h) along with the counter affidavit filed by the 1[st] respondent before this court, to which an English translation is also filed, wherein it is contended that the father of the complainant had inherited 10 cents of land with thandaper No.3575 in Sy.No.584 of Varkala Village as per document No.3192/71 of the Office of **W.P.(C)No.39299 of 2016** **7** the Sub Registrar, Varkala and tax was being paid duly. In the meantime, on the basis of the application filed by the 1[st] respondent that the area is reduced to 2.24 ares consequent to re-survey and to rectify the mistake, investigation and enquiry was made with the aid and assistance of surveyor and head surveyor and after examining the records, the following report was drawn: - “i) The landed property which is the subject matter of this complaint covered by pre survey No: 584 has been made part of Block No: 102 of Varkala Village by Resurvey 3. It is also devoid of absolute possession with no accurate demarcations. (Enclosure 1,2,3) ii) According to Resurvey 3 and pre survey No: 584 settlement, the total extent of the landed properties is found to be 11 cents (4.45 ares). iii) According to the F measurements and check line measurements of pre survey No: 584, when refixed on the earth, no change was observed in the length of the dimensions of the land. Though it is noted as 11 cents as per the settlement register, the extent and dimensions as per the pre survey register is seen only as 3.85 ares. The same extent and dimension had been cited in the L.A procedure sketches. (Enclosure 3,4) The same 3.35 ares of land in pre survey No: 584 was notified to be included in the L.A proceedings by the Tahsildar, **W.P.(C)No.39299 of 2016** **8** Additional LA Unit, Thiruvananthapuram for the Varkala Municipality and hence consequently sub divided. But, since the land acquisition procedure was stayed by the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, the land was not acquired for the said purpose as proposed. Only when the land is acquired as a part of the L.A proceedings, and subsequently necessary changes has been incorporated in the village records (post award), then only the subject of the complaint regarding the disputed extent and dimensions of the land could be fairly detected and reliefs sought could be seen to be resolved. In the absence of the completion of the said proceedings, only vague and improper determination of the measurements of the land could be done which will be not so remote from futility. It is also to be noted that, the complainant had not mentioned or stated the details of LA procedure in any of her applications. (Enclosure 5,6)” It was also submitted that there is no delay on the part of the Additional Tahsildar to deal with the application submitted by the 1[st] respondent. 5. Anyhow, the LokAyukta, after considering the contentions raised by the parties, has passed Exhibit P9 order dated 18.10.2016, which is extracted above, whereby the Additional Tahsildar was directed to rectify the mistake by correcting the revenue records showing the total extent of **W.P.(C)No.39299 of 2016** **9** 8.274 cents corresponding to 3.35 ares of property comprised in Sy.No.584 of Varkala Village and report the matter to the Upa LokAyukta. 6. Apparently, earlier, an action taken report was submitted by the Village Officer, Varkala dated 08.08.2016 before the Upa LokAyukta and the relevant portion of the report is extracted hereunder: “On the basis of the order of the Hon'ble Lok Ayuktha, the taluk survey section surveyed the land and prepared sketch and submitted the sketch to District Survey Superintendent. He rejected the sketch stating that an extent of 50 m² of land in old survey No. 584/1 is Thodu puramboke and not included in the LA proceedings. At present the Thodu puramboke land is in the possession of the complainant's father. Since it is the Thodu puramboke land, Government is liable to protect the land as per Land Conservancy Act and cannot receive tax for Thodu puramboke in Old Survey No. 584/1 (Resurvey No. 20 in block No.102) in Varkala Village. Then the Village Officer and the District Survey Superintendent examined the land in detail with the old survey sketch, acquisition sketch, resurvey sketch and document in the presence of petitioner's husband and brother. They were convinced the matter. The complainant claimed an extent for 03.35 Ares of land. But **W.P.(C)No.39299 of 2016** **10** while constructing compound wall, an extent of 11m **[2]** is left outside the northern part of the complainants land, which in the possession of another person. In the presence of the above persons, the officials surveyed the land to prepare records, but the petitioner possessed 02.24 Ares of land only. The remaining portion of the land claimed by the petitioner is shown as detailed below as per well defined boundary in resurvey. 1. Resruvey No. 20 Block No. 102, Area-0.39m[2] (Now in Thodu puramboke) 2. Resruvey No. 51 Block No. 102, Area - 0.61m² (Now in the possession of Sasidahran Nair, Vasudevavilasam before resurvey the land included in the old survey No. 584/3. 3. Resruvey No. 4 Block No. 102, Area - 0.11m[2] (Now in the possession of Sasidahran Nair, Vasudevavilasam). The petitioner constructed a compound by excluding this area. Total Area (0.39+0.61+0.11) - 01.11 Ares Taxed are of the petitioner - 02.24 Ares -----------------Grand Total - 03.35 Ares ========== The southern side of the complainants property is Thodu puramboke in resurvey No. 20 ( Old survey No. 584 /1) which is possessed by the petitioner.” 7. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention advanced by the petitioners in the writ petition is that the **W.P.(C)No.39299 of 2016** **11** findings rendered by the Upa LokAyukta is against the facts and the relevant statutory provisions of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961. It is also submitted that the LokAyukta has exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating the disputes regarding immovable property and deciding the aspect as to who has title and possession over it. That apart, it is contended that the Upa LokAyukta erred in holding that the 1[st] respondent is in possession of 3.35 ares of property in Sy.No.584 of Varkala Village, ignoring the re-survey proceedings and records. It is also submitted that the LokAyukta exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the revenue authorities to receive the property tax from the 1[st] respondent for the property vested in the State and the properties held by one Sasikumaran Nair. 8. That apart, it is contended that there is no maladministration on the part of the petitioners since already measurement is carried out and a report is drawn that in the re-survey conducted by the revenue authorities, the 1[st] respondent is having only an extent of 2.24 ares of property **12** ## **W.P.(C)No.39299 of 2016** and, therefore, the 1[st] respondent had the remedy to approach the appellate authority in contemplation of the provisions of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961. 9. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 1[st] respondent/complainant contending that from 1971 onwards, the father of the 1[st] respondent was in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 11 cents of property as per the title deed. However, the actual possession was only 10 cents. It is also submitted that the tax for the above said 10 cents of property was being remitted till 2012-2013, evident from Exhibit R1(a) tax receipt. However, thereafter relying on the re-survey allegedly conducted by the petitioners, the area is reduced to 2.24 ares equivalent to 5.53 cents. According to the 1[st] respondent, an extent of 10 cents of land continues to be in their possession. That apart, it is submitted that out of the 10 cents of property, an extent of 3.35 ares was notified for acquisition, evident from Exhibit R1(b) letter dated 31.03.2006 bearing No.A2-1834/2007. It is also submitted that as per Exhibit R1(c) settlement register of **13** ## **W.P.(C)No.39299 of 2016** Chirayinkeezhu Taluk, an extent of 11 cents of paddy field is included in Sy.No.584 of Varkala Village. So also, Exhibits R1(d) and R1(e), sketch of Sy.No.584 of Varkala Village and the notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which are produced and marked before the LokAyukta, also show that the property in Sy.No.584 is lying in a compact plot and that an extent of 3.35 ares of paddy field in Sy.No.584 is notified for acquisition. The 1[st] respondent has also produced Exhibit R1(f) tax receipt bearing No.618179 dated 20.07.2009 evidencing acceptance of land tax for the 10 cents of property in Sy.No.584 of Varkala Village for the year 2009-2010. 10. The 1[st] respondent has also produced the correlation statement as Exhibit R1(g) issued from the Taluk Office, Chirayinkeezhu, Thiruvananthapuram District, from there also, it could be deduced that there was an extent of 4.4 ares of property in Sy.No.584. However, after the re-survey, in ReSy.No.3, Block No.102, the total extent remaining is only 2.24 ares. It is also evident from the correlation statement that **W.P.(C)No.39299 of 2016** **14** the property is having thandaper No.3575. Anyhow, taking into account the entire aspects, the Upa LokAyukta has passed a final order on 08.12.2016, which is not even seen challenged in the writ petition. However, the same is produced as Exhibit R1(k) by the 1[st] respondent. The relevant portion of the said order reads thus: “On that matter also it was made clear that it is not for the Re survey Authorities to create records contrary to existing revenue records and say that a particular extent is in possession of others and that if a portion of the land which belong to the predecessor of the complainant is in the possession of others it is for the complainant to file appropriate suit for recovery and it is not for the Re-survey Authorities to adjudicate on the question of possession. Despite all these enlightenments made to the Addl. Tahsildar as regards the position of law, they are very particular that they will not rectify the mistake. Now it is nearing two months after passing the order dated 14/10/2016. When the case stood posted to 16/11/2016 it was submitted that the order is being assailed before the Hon'ble High Court. Action is being taken at a Snail pace and no appeal is filed till now. Even vide order passed on 16/11/2016 it was made clear that the order passed by this Forum on 14/10/2016 will have to be complied with unless stay is obtained. Still the Addl. Tahsildar Varkala Shri G Babu who is present before me is very adamant that he will **W.P.(C)No.39299 of 2016** **15** not comply with the order and that he wants continued extension of time for filing appeal. I am not prepared to grant any further extension of time on the ground that he asked for time to prefer appeal today also. The impertinent conduct of the Addl. Tahsildar, Varkala Shri G Babu has to be taken note of and appropriate action has to be taken against him for the inaction, dereliction of duty and the impertinence he has shown in the matter despite enlightening him regarding the legal position. Forward a copy of this order to the Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department for appropriate action being taken at that end. Call on awaiting report from the Secretary to the Government regarding the action taken in the matter 10/02/2017.” 11. We have heard the learned Special Government Pleader Sri.M.L.Sajeevan for the petitioners and the learned counsel Sri.Pirappancode V.S. Sudheer for the 1[st] respondent and perused the pleadings and the material on record. 12. The sole question to be considered is whether any interference is required to the order passed by the Upa LokAyukta. The deliberation made above would make it clear that even the revenue records maintained by the Revenue Department of the State, the 1[st] respondent had atleast 10 **16** ## **W.P.(C)No.39299 of 2016** cents of property for which tax was also accepted by the Revenue Department. However, when the re-survey was conducted, the extent of property was reduced to 2.24 ares, which is equivalent to 5.53 cents. It was thereupon that application was filed by the 1[st] respondent to rectify the resurvey records in accordance with the revenue documents as well as the title deed of the 1[st] respondent. No action was taken. It was thereupon that the 1[st] respondent had approached the LokAyukta. Even though a contention is raised that there is no maladministration, in our view, inaction on the part of the State authorities in terms of the definition of maladministration contained under section 2(k) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, is also maladministration. 13. Admittedly, the Additional Tahsildar has filed a statement before the Upa LokAyukta stating that there was no willful negligence on his part to consider the application since he was involved in election duties as authorised by the Election Commission. Whatever that be, it is clear from the correlation statement as well as the sketch issued by the **17** ## **W.P.(C)No.39299 of 2016** Village authorities and other revenue records that the 1[st] respondent was in possession of 10 cents. Even though an action taken report was filed before the Upa LokAyukta and a statement was filed stating that the measurement of the property was conducted and some extent of the property is thodu poramboke and, therefore, tax cannot be accepted to the said property. It is also stated thereunder that the 1[st] respondent’s father was in possession of the entire extent of property and continues with the possession. Even though such statements are filed before the Upa LokAyukta, no records were produced before the Upa LokAyukta to substantiate the contention that the property in possession of the 1[st] respondent is a thodu poramboke. Moreover, it is clear from the settlement register that the total extent of property situated in Sy.No.584 of Varkala Village was 11 cents. Anyhow, it is admitted by the 1[st] respondent that even though the title deed contained an extent of 11 cents of property, tax was accepted only for an extent of 10 cents of property. If the petitioners had stated in the action taken **18** ## **W.P.(C)No.39299 of 2016** report as well as in the statement filed before the Upa LokAyukta that in the re-survey conducted, the reduced extent of property is found to be poramboke land, there is not even an iota of evidence produced either before the Upa LokAyukta or before this court to substantiate the said contention. It was taking into account the said aspects that the Upa LokAyukta found force in the contention advanced by the 1[st] respondent that the original extent of property held by the father of the 1[st] respondent and others in Sy.No.584 of Varkala Village was altered in the re-survey without assigning any reasons, but on the ground that the said property, which was in possession of the 1[st] respondent’s father, is a thodu poramboke. It is also equally important to note that earlier to the complaint filed by the 1[st] respondent before the Upa LokAyukta, the petitioners did not have a case, out of the extent of 10 cents of property, a portion of which is thodu poramboke. Even though various contentions are raised in the writ petition, no documents are produced to establish that there is any thodu poramboke in the property held by the **19** ## **W.P.(C)No.39299 of 2016** 1[st] respondent and others. We are also of the view that when the revenue records pointed out above justified possession of 10 cents of property with the 1[st] respondent, the petitioners had the obligation to establish before the Upa LokAyukta by producing adequate and cogent proof to the effect that out of the total extent of 10 cents of property, a portion was thodu poramboke. No such attempt was made by the petitioners except the production of the re-survey records, which will not resolve the issue raised by the 1[st] respondent before the Upa LokAyukta and it would also not substantiate the contentions raised in the writ petition by the petitioners, and the counter affidavit filed by the 1[st] respondent along with attendant revenue records. 14. Considering the issue in the above perspective, we have no reason to think that the petitioners have made out any case for interference with the orders passed by the Upa LokAyukta in Exhibit P9 and Exhibit R1(k) dated 18.10.2016 and 08.12.2016 respectively, there being no arbitrariness or illegality. The learned Special Government Pleader has relied **20** ## **W.P.(C)No.39299 of 2016** upon a Division Bench judgment of this court in **Sudha Devi K. v. The District Collector** [2017 (2) KLT 1127]; we are of the undoubted opinion that in the said writ petition, it was held by this court that the LokAyukta did not have jurisdiction since the subject issue was pending in civil suit before a competent civil court, which fact is absent in the case at hand; and, therefore, the proposition laid down in the said judgment would not have any application at all. Needless to say, the writ petition fails. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- **S.Manikumar Chief Justice** Sd/- **Shaji P.Chaly Judge** **vpv** **W.P.(C)No.39299 of 2016** **21** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39299/2016`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` - `EXHIBIT P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TITLE DEED.` - `EXHIBIT P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER (BTR).` - `EXHIBIT P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF SEC.4(1) OF THE LA ACT.` - `EXHIBIT P4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF FORM 8 APPLICATION.` - `EXHIBIT P5: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.866 OF 2016 C.` - `EXHIBIT P6: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ACTION TAKEN REPORT FILED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER.` - `EXHIBIT P7: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER REJECTING RESPONDENT NO.1'S APPLICATION FOR AREA ALTERATION.` - `EXHIBIT P8: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR DATED 21.7.2016.` - `EXHIBIT P9: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA IN COMPLAINT NO.866 OF 2016 DATED 18.10.2016.` - `RESPONDENT EXHIBITS` - `EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.1434005, EVIDENCING ACCEPTANCE OF LAND TAX FOR THE 10 CENTS OF PROPERTY, FOR THE YEARS 20122013.` - `EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A2-1834/2007 DATED 31.3.2006 OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, ADDITIONAL (LA) UNIT ADDRESSED TO THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, VARKALA.` **W.P.(C)No.39299 of 2016** **22** ``` EXHIBIT R1(C)TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT REGISTER. EXHIBIT R1(D)TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE OLD SY.NO.584 OF VARKALA VILLAGE. EXHIBIT R1(E)TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT. EXHIBIT R1(F)TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.618179 DATED 20.7.2009 EVIDENCING ACCEPTANCE OF LAND TAX FOR THE 10 CENTS OF PROPERTY IN SY.NO.584 OF VARKALA VILLAGE, FOR THE YEARS 2009-2010. EXHIBIT R1(G)TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE CORRELATION STATEMENT RELATING TO THE PROPERTIES COMPRISED IN SY.NOS.569 TO 586 IN VARKALA VILLAGE OF CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK WITH AGAIN REFERENCE TO RE-SY. BLOCK NO.102. EXHIBIT R1(H)TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 25.6.2016 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LOK AYUKTA. EXHIBIT R1(I)TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 24.6.2016 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LOK AYUKTA. EXHIBIT R1(J)TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH, PRODUCED ALONG WITH EXT.R1(I) REPORT BEFORE THE LOK AYUKTA. EXHIBIT R1(K)TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.12.2016 IN COMPLAINT NO.866/2016 OF THE UPA LOK AYUKTA. ``` //true copy// P.A. to Judge