Supreme Court clarifies the jurisdiction of Lokayukta in matters of revenue record correction: Additional Tahsildar vs. Urmila G. & Others (2023) INSC 1044 (30 November 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 30 November 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 1044
Judges: Vikram Nath, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.
Can the Lokayukta issue direct orders for the correction of revenue records, or is its role limited to making recommendations? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case, clarifying the scope of the Lokayukta’s powers and the appropriate procedures for resolving revenue record disputes. This judgment emphasizes that the Lokayukta’s jurisdiction is primarily recommendatory and does not extend to issuing binding orders that bypass established statutory procedures. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal, with Justice Rajesh Bindal authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case originated from a complaint filed by Urmila G. (Respondent No. 1) with the Kerala Lokayukta. The complaint detailed a long-standing issue regarding errors in the revenue records of land originally owned by her predecessor, K. Gopalakrishnan Nair. Urmila G. sought the correction of these errors and the mutation of the land in the names of the legal heirs of K. Gopalakrishnan Nair. The Upa Lokayukta, in a summary order, directed the Tehsildar, Varkala, to rectify the revenue records and accept tax from the complainant. This order was challenged by the Additional Tehsildar and another (Appellants) in the High Court of Kerala, which dismissed their petition.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Upa Lokayukta issued a directive to the Tehsildar to correct the revenue records, which was challenged by the Appellants in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the Upa Lokayukta’s order. The Appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Upa Lokayukta had overstepped its jurisdiction by issuing positive directions instead of recommendations.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Kerala Lokayukta Act, 1999, specifically Section 12, which outlines the Lokayukta’s powers to make recommendations. Section 12 of the 1999 Act states:

“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 also considered the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961, and the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Rules, 1964, which provide the statutory framework for revenue record corrections. The court noted that the Lokayukta’s jurisdiction is limited to addressing maladministration and making recommendations, not issuing direct orders that bypass the statutory authorities established under these Acts.

Arguments

The appellants argued that the Upa Lokayukta’s order was beyond its jurisdiction because it issued positive directions for correcting revenue records and receiving taxes. They contended that the Lokayukta is not a supervisory body over statutory authorities under the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 and the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Rules, 1964. The Lokayukta’s role, they argued, is to address maladministration and make recommendations, not to issue binding orders.

The respondents did not appear before the Supreme Court, and therefore, no counter-arguments were presented.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue was:

• Whether the Upa Lokayukta has the jurisdiction to issue positive directions for correction of revenue records or is its role limited to making recommendations?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the Upa Lokayukta’s order was beyond its jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the Lokayukta’s role is to recommend actions to the competent authority, not to issue direct orders. The Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the Upa Lokayukta. The Court held that the respondent should avail the appropriate remedy under the relevant statute for correction of revenue records.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Sudha Devi K. v. District Collector [2017 SCC OnLine Ker 1264]: The High Court’s view that the Lokayukta cannot issue positive directions was followed by the Supreme Court.

✓ District Collector and Another v. Registrar, Kerala Lokayukta, Legislative Complex and others [AIR 2023 Ker 97]: The High Court’s ruling that statutory remedies must be exhausted before approaching the Lokayukta was followed by the Supreme Court.

✓ Section 12 of the Lok Ayukta Act, 1999: The Supreme Court interpreted this section to mean that the Lokayukta can only make recommendations, not issue binding directions.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the legal principle that the Lokayukta’s powers are recommendatory, not mandatory. The Court emphasized that statutory authorities must be allowed to exercise their functions as prescribed by the law. The Court also highlighted that the complainant had not exhausted the statutory remedies available for correcting revenue records. The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on the interpretation of the Lokayukta Act and the previous judgments of the High Court of Kerala.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was clear and direct. The court stated, “in our view the order passed by the High Court as well as the Upa Lokayukta cannot be legally sustained.” The court further observed that “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 also noted that “There is nothing on record to show that the respondent no.1 had either availed of any appropriate remedy against the Communication dated 19.04.2016 vide which the request for rectification of record was rejected or any other appropriate remedy for correction thereof.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The Lokayukta’s role is primarily recommendatory, not to issue binding orders.
• ✓ Individuals must exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the Lokayukta.
• ✓ The Lokayukta cannot act as a supervisory authority over statutory bodies.
• ✓ Orders issued by the Lokayukta that exceed its recommendatory powers can be set aside by higher courts.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that Respondent No. 1, if so advised, may avail of any appropriate remedy under the relevant statute for the correction of the revenue records.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Lokayukta’s jurisdiction is limited to making recommendations, and it cannot issue positive directions that bypass statutory authorities. This reinforces the principle that statutory bodies should be allowed to function within their prescribed legal frameworks. This judgment reaffirms the earlier position of law as laid down by the High Court of Kerala.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Additional Tahsildar vs. Urmila G. & Others clarifies the limited jurisdiction of the Lokayukta in matters of revenue record correction. The court emphasized that the Lokayukta’s role is recommendatory and that individuals must exhaust their statutory remedies before approaching the Lokayukta. This decision ensures that statutory authorities are not bypassed and that the legal framework for revenue record corrections is followed.