JUDGMENT :

RAJESH BINDAL, J.

Leave granted.

2. Despite service, no one had appeared for the respondents.

3. The appellants have challenged the order¹[Order dated 10.10.2022.] passed by the High Court²[High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam], whereby the Writ Petition (C) No. 39299 of 2016 filed against the order⁴[Order dated 18.10.2016] passed by Upa Lokayukta⁵[Kerala Upa Lokayukta] in the complaint⁶[Complaint No. 866 of 2016] filed by respondent No. 1 was dismissed.

4. Briefly the facts, as available on record, are that respondent No. 1 filed 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 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 filed 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[The Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961] and 1964 Rules⁸[The Kerala Survey and Boundaries Rules, 1964]. 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 finally 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 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.

8. From the facts, available on record, and a perusal of the complaint which was filed 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 filed in June 2016. Long history pertaining to the land was given while pointing out the errors in the revenue records. The complaint also mentioned that the request of respondent No.1 for rectification 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 filed before the Lokayukta is extracted below:

“1. Direction may be given to the Respondents to rectify the error in the Revenue records in