Lokayukta Cannot Direct Correction Of Revenue Records: Supreme Court

The Court was considering an appeal against the High Court of Kerala judgment that dismissed a Writ Petition against the order of the Upa Lokayukta. The Upa Lokayukta had issued a directive for the correction of revenue records related to a land dispute.

A two-judge bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal held, “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.”

Advocate Harshad V. Hameed appeared for the Appellants.

The appellants argued that the Upa Lokayukta exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing specific directions related to revenue records and taxation, which are under the purview of other statutory authorities. They contended that Lokayukta's role is limited to addressing issues of maladministration.

Despite the absence of representation from the respondents, the Court examined Section 12 of the Lokayukta Act, emphasizing that Lokayukta can only recommend remedies for injustice or hardship caused by a party's action or inaction. The Court added, “Section 12 of the 1999 Act deals with the reports of Lokayukta. It provides that in case Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta is satisfied with any action or inaction of the party which has resulted in injustice or undue hardship to the complainant, it shall by a report in writing, recommend to the competent authority to remedy such injustice or hardship.”

The Court referred to precedents highlighting Lokayukta's recommendatory jurisdiction and emphasized that it is not a supervisory authority over other competent forums. In this case, however, the Court noted that the Upa Lokayukta's directive for the correction of revenue records was upheld, contrary to the precedent. The Court said, “in the aforesaid two Judgments of the High Court, the provisions of the 1999 Act were rightly interpreted. 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.”

The Court held that such a directive goes beyond Lokayukta's jurisdiction, and the orders of the High Court and Upa Lokayukta were set aside. The respondent was advised to pursue appropriate remedies under the relevant statute for correcting revenue records.

The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

Cause Title: Additional Tahsildar & Anr. v. Urmila G. & Ors., [2023 INSC 1044]

Appearance:

Appellants: AOR Harshad V. Hameed, Advocates Dileep Poolakkot, Subhash Chandran K.r. and Ashly Harshad

Click here to read/download Judgment