Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 17940
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
ADDITIONAL TAHSIDLAR – Appellant
Versus
URMILA G – Respondent
WP(C)/39299/2016
SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN; SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR; SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM
Maladministration occurs when state officials fail to act in accordance with legal obligations, particularly in maintaining accurate land records and processing tax applications.
Headnote:
Property - Land Acquisition - Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961, Section 2(k) - The court upheld the Lok Ayukta's decision directing revenue authorities to correct land records, establishing that delays and errors by the authorities constituted maladministration.
Fact of the Case:
A complaint was filed by legal heirs over discrepancies in land records following a re-survey that reduced property measurements. They alleged maladministration by state officials for failing to rectify the records properly and accept tax for the entire property.
Issues: Whether the Lok Ayukta had jurisdiction to adjudicate property disputes and whether the officials exhibited maladministration in handling land tax records.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that the re-survey records did not provide sufficient evidence to dispute the complainants' established rights and obligations regarding land possession and taxation.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed with no interference to the Lok Ayukta's order.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of October, 2022
Shaji P.Chaly, J.
This writ petition is filed by the State OfÏcials, who are respondents in Complaint No.866/2016-C on the files of the Kerala LokAyukta, challenging its Exhibit P9 order dated 18.10.2016, whereby, after taking into account the factual circumstances and the documents made available for consideration, the Upa LokAyukta has passed the following order:
“2. The Tahsildar who is holding additional charge of Additional Tahsildar submits today that 2.47 cents is shown in re-Sy records as Thodu puramboke and 2.71 cents is shown as in possession of others, thus making a total of 5.18 cents which corresponds to 1.11 Ares and therefore tax cannot be received from the complainant. The Tahsildar when asked, states that by re-Sy a registered holding cannot be converted into puramboke land and submits that probably 2.47 cents is shown as puramboke as a thodu is running through the property. For that reason the property could not be classified as puramboke land. With respect to another 2.71 cents according to her it is not in possession of the complainant but in possession of some others. As per the re-Sy records it is not for the re survey authorities to create records contrary to the revenue records and say that a particular extent is in possession of others. If at all a portion of the land which belonged to the predecessor of the complainant is in the possession of others, it is upto him to file appropriate suit for recovery and no assistance need be rendered to establish possession by the re-survey authorities or revenue authorities.
3. In the circumstances 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 OfÏcer 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 effect 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.”
2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:
The complainant/1st respondent herein has filed a complaint before the LokAyukta contending that himself and his brother and sister are the only legal heirs of their father Gopalakrishnan Nair, who expired on 31.03.1988 and his wife, who expired on 30.06.2012. According to the 1st respondent, they are the owners of 10 cents of property owned by her father, who had purchased the said land as per document No.3192/1971. It was further submitted that the original patta is still continuing in the name of late Gopalakrishnan Nair and the thandaper number in the revenue records, even after the death of Gopalakrishnan Nair is not changed and the tax receipt was regularly issued in the name of late Gopalakrishnan Nair. It was also pointed out that the tax was paid for 10 cents. However, when re-survey was conducted, it was found that there was a shortage in the extent of the property and as per the re-survey, the original extent of patta land was reduced to 3.35 ares in Sy.No.584 belonging to the 1st respondent and others. The said land was notified for acquisition but no action was initiated further on the ground that the said proceedings are stayed by the High Court. It was further contended that hence the total extent of property measuring 3.35 ares continued to be as the registered land in the name of the father of the complainant, late Gopalakrishnan Nair. However, when the 1st respondent and other l
