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