IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 2471 of 2008(T) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. DILIP MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. KERALA LOK AYUKTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SIVARAJAN, RAJ BHAVAN, PULIMKUDY, MULLOOR P.O., NEYYATTINKARA. ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 2471/2008 T APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE LOK AYUKTA. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE STATEMENTS OF FACTS KEPT IN THE FILE OF THE OFFICE OF THE DIST. COLLECTOR. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LOK AYUKTA DT. 26/12/2006. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LOK AYUKTA DT. 4/12/2007. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LOK AYUKTA DT. 27/12/2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : EXT.R1A. COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 21/07/07 FROM THE TAHSILDAR, NEYYATTINKARA TO THE R2 ALONG WITH ITS ENCLOSURES. EXT.R1B. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE LAND ASSIGNMENT COMMITTEE. EXT.R1C. COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 12/12/2001 FROM THE TALUK OFFICE, NEYYATTINKARA TO THE DIRECTOR, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. EXT.R1D. COPY OF THE REPORT DT. 2/5/2007 FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTTUKAL TO THE TAHSILDAR, NEYYATTINKARA. EXT.R1E.. COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 19/09/2007 FROM THE TAHSILDAR, NEYYATTINKARA TO THE DIST. COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.R1F. COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 25/08/2007 FROM THE DIRECTOR, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, TO THE DIST. COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM. / TRUE COPY / tga S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 2471 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 25th August, 2009. J U D G M E N T The District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Kerala Lok Ayukta directing the Collector to issue 'patta' to the 2nd respondent in respect of certain properties, assignment for which the 2nd respondent has applied. The primary contention raised in the writ petition is that the Lok Ayukta does not have jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter, since no mal-administration is involved. According to the petitioner, the 'patta' could not be issued in view of the fact that consent of SC & ST Department should be obtained, which has not yet been obtained. 2. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would stoutly oppose the contentions on the basis of R2(a) to R2(f) documents. 3. From the impugned orders, I find that the Lok Ayukta proceeded on the basis of a submission made by the learned Government Pleader in the matter. The Lok Ayukta construed the submission made by the learned Government Pleader as an undertaking that 'patta' itself would be issued within a short time. It is because the patta was not so issued, the Lok Ayukta has passed a further order to the effect that proceedings would be taken for declaring the District Collector unfit to hold the post as contemplated by Section 14 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act. 4. In the writ petition, it is averred that no such submission was made by the learned Government Pleader undertaking to issue patta. According to District Collector, what has been submitted was that the procedure for taking a final decision in the matter is in progress, which does not mean that the patta would be issued positively to the 2nd respondent. 5. On a reading of Ext. P4 order of the Lok Ayukta, I find that the Lok Ayukta has not categorically stated that the learned W.P.C. No. 2471/2008 -: 2 :- Government Pleader undertook to issue the patta. What is stated therein is thus: “Learned Government Pleader submits that action taken report will be filed in the sense that petitioners will be given pattayam within no time.” From the same, to my mind, it appears that what has been submitted by the learned Government Pleader is that action would be taken in the matter of issue of patta to the 2nd respondent, which has been construed by the Lok Ayukta as an undertaking that the 2nd respondent would be given pattayam within no time. 6. In the above circumstances, I am inclined to hold that the order of the Lok Ayukta should be construed as one directing the District Collector to complete the proceedings for assignment within a reasonable time. Therefore, I hold that Exts.P3 to P5 orders should be construed as one directing the District Collector to complete the proceedings for assignment of land in favour of the 2nd respondent within a reasonable time. 7. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that there are 17 others and the complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent on behalf of all of them. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of this writ petition directing the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram to complete the proceedings in respect of the applications for assignment of land submitted by the persons mentioned, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/