IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2011 / 27TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 27752 of 2011(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RACHEL FLORENCE, W/O.LATE SUMANAM,SUMAN COTTAGE, CHOONDU PALAKA,KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.V.S.BABU GIREESAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, COLLECTORATE,KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 690 005 3. ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, NEYYATTINKARA 695 121 4. ANILKUMAR, RE-SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, NEDUMANGADU 695 541 5. SUNITHA, I GRADE SURVEYOR,RE-SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM 682 005 6. S.P.VINCENT, CHARUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, KOOVALASSERY P.O., OORUTTAMBALAM,TRIVANDRUM PIN 695 05 7. SELINA THANKAM, BETHEL HOUSE,MUTHIYAVILA, KATTAKKADA 695 572 WP(C).No. 27752 of 2011 -2- 8. S.P.VIJAYAN, CHARUVILA VEEDU,KOOVALASSERY, P.O OORUTTAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. GP MAYA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27752 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.1509/2011 A OF THE LOKAYUKTA EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.442/09 DATED 6/7/2011 OF THE ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,NEDUMANGAD EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20TH SEPTEMBER 2011 (True copy) P.A To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).27752/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 19th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order passed by the Kerala Lok Ayukta in Complaint No.1509/2011. The complaint of the petitioner is that the official respondents are guilty of maladministration in as much as the patta of the property of the petitioner's husband was changed in favour of party respondents without notice to her or an enquiry. However, it is seen from the pleadings that the petitioner herself had filed O.S.No.442/2009 before the Munsiff's Court, Nedumangadu for declaration of title and possession of the property in question and that the Suit was dismissed by Ext.P2 judgment. The Civil Court, on evidence, came to the following finding:- “From the evidence of PW6 and PW8 it is revealed that the entries in revenue records were corrected on the application made by the defendants after inquiry and being satisfied that the property is in possession and ownership of the defendants.” W.P.(C).27752/2011 2 2. Therefore, the title and possession claimed by the petitioner stands negatived by the judgment and the Civil Court has on evidence, come to the finding that the records were corrected, after enquiry and on being satisfied that the property is in possession and ownership of the defendants. So long as the said findings remain in force, official respondents cannot be faulted with any case of action, grievance or allegations, to maintain a complaint before the Lok Ayukta. In such circumstances, I do not see anything illegal in Ext.P3 warranting interference. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs