Kerala High Court
The Tahsildar vs P.Jayadevan Nair on 3 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 14TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.10627 OF 2013(C)
PETITIONERS:
1 THE TAHSILDAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK.
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KOWDIAR VILLAGE, KOWDIAR P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY SRI. TEK CHAND, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENT:
P.JAYADEVAN NAIR
KULAM, G H S ROAD, KACHERI JUNCTION,
NEDUMANGADU P O- 695 541.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.I.J.AUGUSTINE
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.BIJESH
R1 BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
R1 BY ADV. SRI.SAIJO HASSAN
R1 BY ADV. SRI.SEBIN THOMAS
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.E.SAJAL
SRI.I.J.AUGUSTINE FOR RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-02-2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 10627/2013 :2:
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2021.
JUDGMENT
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
The writ petition is filed by the Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram and
the Village Officer, Kowdiar Village, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging the
order passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta in Complaint No. 460/2011 filed by
the respondent alleging corrupt practices in the matter of providing
mutation to an extent of 10.350 cents of land purchased by the
respondent under the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966.
2. After considering the rival submissions made by the parties,
Ext. P1 order dated 01.07.2011 was passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta
directing the appellants to effect mutation of 10.350 cents of land
remaining in the name of the respondent and his wife in equal division of
5.175 cents and to receive land tax. However, liberty was granted to the
appellants to conduct enquiry in accordance with law into the alleged
manipulation and if found so, to make necessary corrections in the
village records. Such a direction was rendered by the Upa Lok Ayukta
after finding that the records then available shows that the complainant
and his wife are the owners of 10.350 cents of land in Survey No. 3770
of Kowdiar Village on the basis of the sale deed Nos. 3858/06 and
3857/2006 and on the basis of the prior registered sale deeds executed
by the respective owners coupled with the entries made in the village
records and the tax receipts.
3. The Upa Lok Ayukta has also found that no alteration has so far
been made in the village records changing the extent of land and that it
was just and reasonable to find that application made by the
complainant/respondent and his wife for mutation should receive
favourable consideration at the hands of the appellants. It was also
made clear that such an action shall be consistent with the Transfer of
Registry Rules as well and it was found that the stand of the appellants
are not justifiable in rejecting the request of the complainant/
respondent and his wife for mutation of the property.
4. Apparently, Additional Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram has
submitted Ext. P4 action taken report before the Upa Lok Ayukta dated
nil, whereby it is stated that the mutation has been effected for 6.350
cents of patta land comprised in Survey No. 3770 of Kowdiar Village,
Thiruvananthapuram Taluk as per the proceedings Nos. PV 234/2010 and
PV 235/2010 and assigned with Thandaper Nos. TP 24454 and 24455 in
favour of the first respondent and his wife. Copy of the thandaper
records were also produced before the Upa Lok Ayukta.
5. However, Ext. P5 order was passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta on
13.10.2011 specifying that on a perusal of the action taken report filed
by the Additional Tahsildar, it is seen that the respondents have failed to
comply with the directions issued by the Upa Lok Ayukta and was
directed to appear in person and to show cause why the order passed on
01.07.2011 has not been fully complied with. Apparently, on the basis of
the directions, the Tahsildar appeared before the Upa Lok Ayukta and
after assimilating the facts situations, the Upa Lok Ayukta has passed
Ext. P6 order dated 07.12.2012. It is, thus, challenging the said order of
the Upa Lok Ayukta and seeking a direction to close the complaint on the
basis of Ext. P4 action taken report, the writ petition is preferred. In
Ext. P6, it was found by the Upa Lok Ayukta that the Tahsildar as well as
the Village Officer have not taken any proper action to comply with the
directions of the Upa Lok Ayukta or the directions issued by the State
Government.
6. As per letter dated 05.05.2012 referred to in the said order, it
was also found that the Tahsildar and the Village Officer were
demonstrating adamant and recalcitrant attitude to implement the orders
passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta, and they were bent upon to harass the
respondent and his wife. After finding so, the Upa Lok Ayukta observed
that in case of non compliance of the order of the Upa Lok Ayukta as
provided under Section 12(5) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, if the
said forum is not satisfied that the recommendations or the findings have
not been fully complied with, a special report regarding the non
compliance and the dissatisfaction of the Lok Ayukta about the conduct
of the public servant can be submitted to the Governor, so that the
matter will be placed for the consideration of the Legislative Assembly
for appropriate debate and resolution. Anyhow, the matter was directed
to be placed before the Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram and the Village
Officer, Kowdiar for appropriate action in accordance with the
observations contained in Ext. P6 order dated 07.12.2012.
7. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit supporting the
orders passed by the Upa Lok Ayukata and also submitting that the
property was in possession of the predecessors-in-title of the property
and it was after taking into account the evidence in the matter, the Lok
Ayukta has passed Ext. P1 order dated 01.07.2011 directing the
appellants to effect mutation and receive tax from the respondent and
his wife and thereafter, to proceed with the investigation in regard to the
allegations made that there was manipulation of village records.
8. We have heard the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. Tek
Chand for the appellants and Sri. I.J. Augustine appearing for the
respondent, and perused the pleadings and materials on record.
9. The facts discussed above would make it clear that Ext. P1
order was a final order passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta in the complaint
filed by the first respondent in regard to the failure of the appellants to
effect mutation of the property in accordance with the provisions of the
Transfer of Registry Rules. In fact, after a detailed deliberation and
analysis of the submissions made by the rival parties and the documents
produced that the Upa Lok Ayukta has arrived at the findings rendered
thereunder and directions were issued to effect mutation of the property
and receive tax and liberty was granted to proceed with the enquiry in
regard to the fraud and manipulation of the village records. However, it
is evident from Ext. P4 action taken report that the appellants have only
effected mutation of 6.350 cents of patta land comprised in Survey No.
3770 of Kowdiar Village and no reasons are assigned in Ext. P4 as to why
mutation was not effected to the rest of the property out of total extent
of 10.350 cents. It was accordingly that the Upa Loka Ayukta has passed
Exts. P5 and Ext. P6 orders placing the matter before the Tahsildar to
reconsider the matter taking into account the observations and directions
contained in the earlier order passed as well as Ext. P6 order dated
07.12.2012.
10. In fact, the appellants have not even challenged Ext.P1 order
passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta in this proceedings and according to us,
mere relief sought for to direct the Upa Lok Ayukta to close the
complaint proceedings is not a sustainable prayer under law, because the
Upa Lok Ayukta happened to pass consequential orders namely Exts.P5
and P6 as specified above consequent to the failure on the part of the
appellants to comply with the directions contained in Ext. P1 order dated
01.07.2011.
11. We are also of the opinion that the appellants have not made
out any illegality, arbitrariness or other unfairness on the part of the Upa
Lok Ayukta in its attempts to implement the order passed by it, evident
from Ext. P1. Moreover, it was on the basis of the assimilation of the
factual aspects and evidence, discernible from various documents that
orders were passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta. The appellants have not
produced any substantial materials before this Court to arrive at a
finding that the findings rendered by the Upa Lok Ayukta are so
perverse, arbitrary or illegal, justifying interference in a writ proceedings
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appellants have
not made out any case for interference with Exts.P4 and P6 orders
passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta.
Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed, leaving open the liberty
of the appellants to comply with the directions contained in Exts. P1 and
P6 orders of the Upa Lok Ayukta.
S. MANIKUMAR,
CHIEF JUSTICE.
SHAJI P. CHALY,
JUDGE.
Rv
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LOK AYUKTA DTD
1/7/2011.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD 16/5/1992 OF
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PATTAYAM ISSUED TO
CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR,
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ACTION TAKEN REPORT SUBMITTED
BY THE IST PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PV NO 234/10 IN TP NO 24454.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PV NO 235/10 IN TP NO 24455.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 13/10/2011 OF THE LOK
AYUKTA.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 7/12/2012.
/True Copy/
P.S To Judge.
rv
