The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Kerala Upa LokAyukta orders regarding property mutation and land tax. Since the petitioner failed to establish any rights over the property in the writ petition, the Court declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 and dismissed the matter.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
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 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 4617 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
T.V.RAJESH, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPAN ASSARI, RESIDING AT RAJESH BHAVAN, VARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, T.C.11/958, NALANDA ROAD, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR K.JOHN MATHAI SRI .CHETAN KRISHNA JOSON MANAVALAN KURYAN THOMAS PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN
RESPONDENTS:
BY ADVS.SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR
SMT.MINI.M.NAIR SRI.TEKCHAND, GOVT. PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 4617 OF 2020
:: 2 ::
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 6th day of July 2022
Shaji P. Chaly, J.
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Exts.P11 and P11(a) orders passed by the Kerala Upa LokAyukta in Complaint No.908/2017 dated 8th August 2017 and 21st July 2017 and also for quashing Ext.P12 complaint filed before the Kerala LokAyukta. The case projected by the writ petitioner is that during the pendency of a civil dispute, the 5th respondent in the writ petition namely, Sheela Remani approached Upa LokAyukta and has obtained the impugned orders. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the complaint was filed before the Upa LokAyukta without making the writ petitioner as a party, who was a necessary party, in the complaint. It is also submitted that the subject matter of Exts.P11 and P11(a) orders and Ext.P12 complaint are the same subject matter of Ext.P5 suit i.e., O.S.No.1084/2018, Ext.P9 suit i.e., O.S.1694/2013 on the files of the Munsiff’s Court, Thiruvananthapuram, Ext.P9(a) order passed by the Additional District Judge – II, Thiruvananthapuram in A.S.No.43/2017, an offshoot from an order passed in I.A.No.8586/2016 in
WP(C) NO. 4617 OF 2020
:: 3 ::
O.S.No.1694/2013 filed by Sheela Remani, and an FAO pending before this court evident from Ext.P10 case status details. The main grievance of the petitioner is that in Exts.P11 and P11(a) orders passed by the Upa LokAyukta, a positive direction is issued which is likely to affect the proceedings in the civil disputes pending by and between the parties and therefore, the directions are to be set aside apart from setting aside Ext.P12 complaint since it is concerning a civil dispute. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that since it is a civil dispute by and between the parties the Upa LokAyukta ought not have entertained the complaint before it.
WP(C) NO. 4617 OF 2020
:: 4 ::
2018-2019 and the complaint was closed accordingly. It is also submitted that when the 5th respondent approached the Tahsildar for remitting land tax for the year 2019-2020, he was reluctant to accept the same and it was thereupon that the 5th respondent has filed Ext.P12 complaint No.206/2019 before the Upa LokAyukta and after filing the complaint, the 4th respondent accepted the land tax on 6.2.2020 and accordingly, Ext.P12 complaint is closed. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention advanced by the 5th respondent is that the orders issued by the Upa LokAyukta having been complied with, the prayers made in the writ petition to set aside Exts.P11 and P11(a) and to quash Ext.P12 have virtually become inconsequential and redundant. Be that as it may, the important contention put forth by the petitioner is that in none of the civil suits pointed out by the petitioner, details of which are produced along with the writ petition, the writ petitioner is a party and the petitioner therefore is incompetent to file a writ petition claiming any benefits out of the property in question on that basis.
WP(C) NO. 4617 OF 2020
:: 5 ::
learned counsel for the 5th respondent, Smt.Mini M. Nair and perused the pleadings and material on record.
(k) "mal-administration" means action taken or purporting to have been taken in the exercise of administrative functions in any case where,--
(i) such action or the administrative procedure or practice adopted in such action is unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory; or
(ii) there has been wilful negligence or undue delay in taking such action or the administrative procedure or practice adopted in such action involves undue delay;
WP(C) NO. 4617 OF 2020
:: 6 ::
inaction on the part of an officer of the Government to discharge a duty in contemplation of any statute or rules, it is a maladministration thus conferring power on the Upa LokAyukta to act upon a complaint and adjudicate the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1999. It is quite clear from Ext.P11 order that on the basis of directions given in Ext.P11 order, the Tahsildar was present before the Upa LokAyukta and submitted that the complainant has already applied for mutation and the Tahsildar has no objection to effect mutation in the light of the clarification of law made by the Upa LokAyukta. Therefore, it was directed that the Tahsildar shall effect mutation in favour of the 5th respondent/complainant in relation to Ext.P1 title deed obtained by her from the executant who is the pattadar; and consequently, directed the Village Officer to receive tax from the complainant and the matter was posted to 18.8.2017 for report. The main grievance projected by the petitioner so far as concerning Ext.P11 order is that in the order the civil rights claimed by the complainant as per Ext.P2 settlement deed was settled by the Upa Lokayukta by adjudicating on
WP(C) NO. 4617 OF 2020
:: 7 ::
title, which is impermissible under law. Therefore, it is submitted that, the Upa LokAyukta having observed that document No.52/1979 has taken effect and executants of Exts.P1 and P2 have all acted on the basis of the right under Settlement Deed No.52/1979 and the vendor of the complainant has obtained patta and continuously paid tax in relation to the said property from 2006 onwards, would stand in the way of the competent civil court to consider the claim of title of the writ petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that the Upa LokAyukta, which is not vested with powers to adjudicate a civil right of the parties has exceeded his jurisdiction and has passed an illegal order. In fact in Ext.P11 (a) order also, the Upa LokAyukta found that the earlier order passed by it is not complied with and therefore, further directions are issued. First of all, the order passed by the Upa LokAyukta was acted upon by the Tahsildar and the Village Officer as early as in the year 2017. This writ petition was filed in the year 2020 that is almost three years after Exts.P11 and P11(a) orders were passed. From the records, we find that Ext.P12 complaint No.206/2019 happened to be instituted by the 5th respondent herein since the tax for the period 2019-2020 was not accepted. However,
WP(C) NO. 4617 OF 2020
:: 8 ::
thereafter, the tax was accepted and accordingly, the said complaint was also closed. The record of proceedings and the documents produced by the writ petitioner would show that in none of the civil suits referred to above the petitioner is a party. Various contentions are raised by the petitioner relying upon the suit proceedings and the appeal proceedings deliberated above, but we are at a loss to understand how without being a party to any of the proceedings any contention could be raised by the petitioner relying upon the civil suits pending before the civil courts. That apart, an order passed by the statutory authority under the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 is after conducting due verification of any documents produced by the applicant. It is an admitted fact that after purchase of the property, the 5th respondent submitted an application for effecting mutation of the property, which was not done by the Tahsildar and consequently, tax was not accepted by the Village Officer. It was the said circumstance that persuaded the 5th respondent to approach the LokAyukta. On an appreciation of the facts, we are of the clear opinion that since there was inaction on the part of the Tahsildar or the Village Officer to consider the application submitted by the 5th
WP(C) NO. 4617 OF 2020
:: 9 ::
respondent, the 5th respondent was entitled to prefer an application before the LokAyukta on the ground of maladministration as is clear from the definition provided to maladministration under the Act, 1999. Moreover, when a transfer of registry is granted by the competent authority under the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966, it can be changed by the competent authority, if any Judgment and decree are passed in favour of any third person in respect of the property for which the transfer of registry was granted. Here, the main case advanced by the petitioner is that due to the finding rendered by the Upa LokAyukta in respect of cancellation of a settlement deed; execution of a new settlement deed; and that the vendor of the 5th respondent had title to transfer the property would stand against the petitioner. As we have pointed out above, petitioner has not at all established in the writ petition that the petitioner has any right over the property in question. However, as we have pointed out above, if any declaration is made by a competent civil court in favour of the petitioner or any other person in respect of their title to the property in question and on submitting any application, it is for the authority under the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 to consider the same and
WP(C) NO. 4617 OF 2020
:: 10 ::
decide on the entitlement of the said person for the transfer of registry. In that view of the matter and since the petitioner has not established any rights in his favour so as to attack the impugned orders passed by the Upa LokAyukta, we are not inclined to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction conferred on us under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Needless to say, writ petition fails accordingly, it is dismissed. However, we make it clear that in spite of the findings rendered by the Upa LokAyukta in the impugned orders Exts.P11 and P11(a), any judgment/decree passed by a competent civil court if produced along with any application in respect of very same property, it is for the authority under the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 to consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders.
SD/S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE
SD/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE
jes
WP(C) NO. 4617 OF 2020
:: 11 ::
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 | COPY OF SALE DEED NO.4089/2005 OF PATTOM SRO DATED 8/9/2005 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P1(a) | COPY OF ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY PATTOM SRO DATED 6/10/2012 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. |
| EXHIBIT P2 | COPIES OF THE LAND RECEIPTS OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KAVADIYAR WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION DATED 23.10.2018. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.663/2018 OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY POLICE STATION DATED 18/06/2018 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. |
| EXHIBIT P5 | COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.1084/2018 DATED 29/06/2018 FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. |
| EXHIBIT P6 | COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.NO.1084/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. |
| EXHIBIT P7 | COPY OF THE ORDER OF CANCELLING THE MUTATION OF PROPERTY TO SMT.SHARADAMANI BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 06/01/2016 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. |
| EXHIBIT P8 | COPY OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER AS PER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION DATED 5.6.2017. |
| EXHIBIT P9 | COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.1694/2013 DATED 16/11/2013 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. |
| EXHIBIT P9(a) | COPY OF THE A.S.NO.43/2017 FILED BY HE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 14/11/2017 BEFORE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-II,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. |
| EXHIBIT P10 | COPY OF THE COURT STATUS IN FAO (RO) NO.10 OF 2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. |
| EXHIBIT P11 | COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08/08/2017 IN COMPLAINT NO.908/2017 C. |
| EXHIBIT P11(A) | COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/07/2017 IN COMPLAINT NO.908/2017 C WITH TYPED COPY OF EXT.P11(a). |
| EXHIBIT P12 | COPY OF THE SAID COMPLAINT NO.206/2019 A FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 29/6/2019. |
| Exhibit P13 | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (RCC) IN O.S. 1694/2013, DATED 19.09.2015. |
| Exhibit P14 | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN F.A.O. (R.O) 10/2019 DATED 01.02.2022. |
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R5(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 06.02.2020 AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
// TRUE COPY //
P.S. TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with the LokAyukta order.
Whether the petitioner validly challenges the order without establishing substantive rights over the property.
T.V.RAJESH
STATE OF KERALA
KERALA LOK AYUKTHA
VILLAGE OFFICER
ADDITIONAL TAHASILDAR (LR)
SHEELA REMANI
S.MANIKUMAR
SHAJI P. CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
