Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.

1. By this writ petition the petitioner challenges Exts.P4 and P6 being orders passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta in complaint No.877/2016 (D). It may be noted that the said complaint was filed by the writ petitioner herself.

2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for 5th respondent who is the sole private contesting respondent, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader and with their consent, we are disposing of this matter at this stage itself.

3. It appears that the father of the writ petitioner and 5th respondent left behind certain properties, part of which was given to one or the other family member and part of it was allegedly intended to be kept in the state of joint owners. Amongst co-sharers, there were some disputes which lead to the institution of O.S. No.2199/2015 before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram by 5th respondent in which the petitioner is a defendant. In the Suit the plaintiff had obtained an injunction restraining the defendant, i.e. the writ petitioner, from changing the nature of the property in any manner.

4. It appears some time thereafter the writ petitioner alleged that on the basis of certain forgeries committed by 5th respondent or at her behest, wrong entries were being sought to be made in the revenue records of the State in respect of part of the property which was the subject matter of the Suit. The writ petitioner/defendant in the Suit then moved the Upa Lok Ayukta by the instant complaint complaining about alleged mal-administration by the revenue authorities in the matter of mutation as allegedly got done by the plaintiff who is the 5th respondent herein. In those proceedings, the writ petitioner invited the attention of the Upa Lok Ayukta to the facts and sought orders against the mal-administration as alleged. Upon notice to the parties and hearing them, the Upa Lok Ayukta passed orders, which are impugned herein as Exts.P4 and P6. Those orders are positive directions to the revenue authorities and have substantially gone against the writ petitioner who was the complainant.

5. The submission on behalf of the writ petitioner is that in the facts and circumstances as noted above, the Upa Lok Ayukta did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and consequently the orders passed are out of jurisdiction. Secondly, he submitted that in terms of Section 12 of the Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, the Lok Ayukta or the Upa Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to issue positive directions. The aforesaid provision and in particular sub-section (1) thereof comments that the Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta would submit a report in writing to the appropriate authority with their recommendation. Thus, it is only an advisory order but, not a peremptory order that could be issued.

6. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel appearing on both sides. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent, who was also the contesting respondent before the Upa Lok Ayukta and who is plaintiff in the Suit, has very fairly conceded that the complaint as filed by the writ petitioner could not be entertained by the Upa Lok Ayukta in the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the petitioner and the contesting respondent are ad idem on this issue, which, in our view, is the correct position.

7. The matter relates to a civil dispute which is pending before a court of competent jurisdiction where both the parties have appeared. The nature of dispute is such that it has to be adjudicated by the civil court. Thus the matter being substantially sub judice before the civil court, in our opinion, the Upa Lok Ayukta ought not to have entertained the complaint at all and left the parties to avail all remedies as per common civil law. Even if both the parties moved the Upa Lok Ayukta, it is well established that consent cannot confer jurisdiction, where there was inherent lack of jurisdiction on the part of Upa Lok Ayukta to entertain such a complaint. Eve