ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR & ANR versus URMILA G. & ORS.
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 1090, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR & ANR.
v.
URMILA G. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No(S) 7938 of 2023)
NOVEMBER 30, 2023
[VIKRAM NATH AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the Lok Ayukta has jurisdiction to 
issue positive directions for correction of revenue records.
Kerela Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 – s. 12 – Reports of Lok Ayukta – 
Jurisdiction of Lokayukta – Directions by Upa-Lokayukta for correction 
of revenue records – Sustainability:
Held: s. 12 provides that in case Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta is 
satisﬁ ed 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 
– On facts, the writ Petition was ﬁ led by the Additional Tahsildar against 
an order of the Upa Lokayukta that had directed the correction of revenue 
records of the property of the complainant – Direction issued by the Upa 
Lokayukta for correction of the revenue records which was upheld by the 
High Court, goes totally beyond the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta – Nothing 
on record to show that the complainant had either availed of any appropriate 
remedy against the Communication vide which the request for rectiﬁ cation 
of record was rejected or any other appropriate remedy for correction thereof 
– Thus, the order passed by the High Court, as well as the Upa Lokayukta 
not legally sustainable and is set aside. [Para 11-13]
LIST OF CITATIONS
AND OTHER REFERENCES
Sudha Devi K. v. District Collector 2017 SCC OnLine Ker 1264; 
District Collector and Another v. Registrar, Kerala Lokayukta, Legislative 
Complex and others AIR 2023 Ker 97 – approved.
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 1090 : 2023 INSC 1044
1090
1091
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7938 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.2022 of the High Court of 
Kerala at Ernakulam in WP (C) No.39299 of 2016.
Appearances:
Harshad V. Hameed, Dileep Poolakkot, Subhash Chandran K. R., 
Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Dr. Prahlad Narayan Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
    Leave granted.
2. Despite service, no one had appeared for the respondents.
3.  The appellants have challenged the order1 passed by the High 
Court2, whereby the Writ Petition3 ﬁ led against the order4  passed by Upa 
Lokayukta5 in the complaint6 ﬁ led by respondent No. 1 was dismissed.
4. Brieﬂ y the facts, as available on record, are that respondent No. 1 
ﬁ led a complaint with the Lokayukta narrating long history of the revenue 
record pertaining to the land with a grievance that the revenue record was 
not being corrected and for a direction be issued to the respondents therein 
for correction thereof and also to mutate the land in question in the name 
of legal heirs of late K. Gopalakrishnan Nair viz. (1) G. Urmila, (2) G. 
Ushakumari and (3) G. Krishnakumar. Upa Lokayukta, vide cryptic order 
dated 18.10.2016, directed Tehsildar, Varkala to rectify the mistake in the 
revenue records and also receive tax from the complainant. The order was 
1 
Order dated 10.10.2022.
2 
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
3 
Writ
Petition (C) No. 39299 of 2016
4 
Order dated 18.10.2016
5 
Kerala Upa Lokayukta
6 
Complaint No. 866 of 2016
ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR & ANR. v. URMILA G. & ORS.
1092 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
to be complied with positively within one month and such compliance was to 
be reported on 16.11.2016. Aggrieved against the order, the appellants ﬁ led 
Writ Petition in the High Court, which was dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the order passed 
by Upa Lokayukta was totally without jurisdiction while it issued positive 
directions for correction of revenue records and also to receive tax for which 
statutory authorities have been prescribed under the 1961 Act7 and 1964 Rules8. 
Lokayukta is not a supervisory body above the statutory authorities in hierarchy 
under the aforesaid statutes. The jurisdiction given to Lokayukta was only to 
address the issue of maladministration, however, without addressing that issue 
in the order, it travelled beyond its jurisdiction to deal with the matter on merits 
and issued positive directions for correction of revenue records, hence the orders 
passed by the High Court as well as Upa Lokayukta deserve to be set aside.
6. A perusal of the paper book shows that despite service, the respondents 
remained unrepresented on 18.08.2023 and also when the matter was ﬁ nally 
heard and order was reserved on 31.10.2023.
7. Section 12 of the 1999 Act deals with the reports of Lokayukta. It 
provides that in case Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta is satisﬁ ed 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.
8. From the facts, available on record, and a perusal of the complaint 
which was ﬁ led by respondent No. 1 before Lokayukta, it is evident that the 
grievance raised was regarding correction of the error in the revenue records of 
the property in Survey No. 584 (re-surveyed in Sy No. BL-102/03) and also to 
mutate the same in the name of legal heirs of K. Gopalakrishnan Nair viz. (1) 
G. Urmila, (2) G. Ushakumari and (3) G. Krishnakumar. It was pleaded that 
inaction on the part of the respondents in the complaint in rectifying the mistake 
amounted to maladministration which should be investigated by Lokayukta. 
The complaint was ﬁ led in June 2016. Long history pertaining to the land was 
given while pointing out the errors in the revenue records. The complaint also 
7 
The Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961
8 
The Kerala Survey and Boundaries Rules, 1964
1093
mentioned that the request of respondent No.1 for rectiﬁ cation of the defect in 
the revenue records was declined by the Additional Tehsildar vide order dated 
19.04.2016. However, nothing was mentioned if any further action was taken 
by respondent No. 1 to challenge the aforesaid communication. The relevant 
claim in the aforesaid complaint ﬁ led before the Lokayukta is extracted below:
“1. Direction may be given to the Respondents to rectify the error in the 
Revenue records in respect of the property in Survey No.584 of Varkala 
owned and possessed by late K. Gopalakrishnan Nair by correcting it as 
3.35 Ares instead of 2.24 Ares.
2. Direction may be given to the 4th Respondent to mutate the above 
mentioned property in Sy. No.584 (Re-surveyed in Sy. No.BL-102/03) in 
the name of the legal heirs of late K. Gopalakrishnan Nair viz. (1) G. Urmila, 
(2) G. Ushakumari and (3) G. Krishnakumar.”
9. Insofar as the jurisdiction of Lokayukta is concerned a Division Bench 
of the High Court in Sudha Devi K. v. District Collector9  had opined that in 
terms of Section 12(1) of the 1999 Act10, Lok Ayukta was not competent to issue 
positive direction. He can only submit a report with the concerned authority with 
its recommendations. They only have recommendatory jurisdiction. A Lokayukta 
or Upa Lokayukta is not appellate or supervisory authority over other competent 
forums created under diﬀ erent statutes, as each of those statues provide its 
own remedial steps such as
appeal, revision etc. The parties need to follow that 
procedure. The 1999 Act is not meant to override those procedures. The aforesaid 
judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court was referred to in the case in 
hand, however, the same was ignored.
10. In a subsequent judgment in District Collector and Another v. 
Registrar, Kerala Lokayukta, Legislative Complex and others11, the Division 
Bench of the High Court reiterated the law laid down in Sudha Devi K. case 
(supra).  It was opined that the complainants therein had not availed the statutory 
remedies regarding rectiﬁ cation of the mistakes in the revenue record. When a 
relevant statute provides for hierarchy of remedies, those should have been resorted 
to. The action of the Lokayukta was found to be without jurisdiction.
9 
2017 SCC OnLine Ker 1264
10 The Lok Ayukta Act, 1999
11 AIR 2023 Ker 97
ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR & ANR. v. URMILA G. & ORS.


 








1094 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
11. In our view, 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 direction given by Upa Lokayukta in its summary order is 
extracted below:    
“3. In the circumstances, I direct Smt. Saajitha Beegum Tahsildar, 
Varkala who is holding full additional charge of the Additional Tahsildar 
to rectify the mistake in re-survey records and direct the Village Oﬃ  cer 
concerned, to receive tax from the complainant for the balance 1.11 Ares 
of property as well which corresponds to 5.18 cents for the period from 
2010 to 16 giving credit to Rs.83/- that is already paid under Ext.P5 for 
a portion of the property by the complainant and also to eﬀ ect necessary 
corrections in the revenue records showing the said total extent of 8.274 
cents corresponding to 3.35 Ares of property comprised in old Sy. No. 
584 showing the title thereof as being with the complainant’s predecessor 
in re-Sy. No. 3 of Block No. 102 rectifying the mistake brought in by the 
revenue authorities. This shall be done positively in one month. Comply 
and report on 16.11.2016.”
12. 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 rectiﬁ cation of record was rejected or 
any other appropriate remedy for correction thereof.
13. For the reasons, mentioned above, in our view the order passed by 
the High Court as well as the Upa Lokayukta cannot be legally sustained.  The 
same are accordingly set aside.  Respondent no.1, if so advised, may avail of 
any appropriate remedy under the relevant statute for correction of the revenue 
records.
14. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Headnotes prepared by: 
Appeal allowed.
Nidhi Jain