2017 (3) TMI 1915 - HC - Indian Laws

Forgeries - wrong entries made in the revenue records of the State in respect of part of the property - whether Upa Lok Ayukta had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or not? - HELD THAT - 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. Even if both the parties agreed, jurisdiction could not be conferred where the Statute does not provide for it - the complaint ought not to have been entertained by the Lok Ayukta. That being the position, the proceedings before the Lok Ayukta were wholly without jurisdiction and consequentially the orders passed therein cannot be held to be legal, valid and binding. The writ petitioner seeks liberty to withdraw the complaint (Ext. P2) made before the Lok Ayukta in order to move Civil Court or such other competent authority as the petitioner may be advised - the complaint filed before the Lok Ayukta would thus stand withdrawn.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to orders passed by Upa Lok Ayukta, jurisdiction of Lok Ayukta in civil disputes, authority to issue positive directions.

Analysis:
1. Challenge to Orders by Upa Lok Ayukta: The petitioner challenged orders Exts. P4 and P6 passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta in complaint No. 877/2016. The complaint was filed by the petitioner herself. The dispute arose from properties left behind by the petitioner's father and the 5th respondent. The petitioner alleged maladministration by the revenue authorities regarding the mutation of property. The Upa Lok Ayukta issued orders against the petitioner, which were challenged on grounds of jurisdiction and validity.

2. Jurisdiction in Civil Disputes: The High Court held that the Upa Lok Ayukta did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint due to the matter being a civil dispute pending before a competent Civil Court. Both parties had appeared before the Civil Court, and the nature of the dispute required adjudication by the Civil Court. It was emphasized that the Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta are not appellate or supervisory authorities over other competent forums, and their jurisdiction does not extend to matters already under the purview of designated forums.

3. Authority to Issue Positive Directions: The petitioner contended that the Lok Ayukta was not competent to issue positive directions, as per Section 12(1) of the Lok Ayukta Act, 1999. The High Court agreed, stating that the Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta can only make a report to the concerned authority with recommendations. They do not possess the authority to issue peremptory orders or positive directions, as their jurisdiction is recommendatory in nature.

4. Final Disposition: The High Court granted the petitioner liberty to withdraw the complaint before the Lok Ayukta to pursue remedies in the Civil Court or other competent authorities. The complaint was withdrawn, and it was reiterated that the Lok Ayukta does not have the authority to issue positive directions. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations and directions, emphasizing the limited jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayukta in civil disputes and the nature of their authority to make recommendations rather than issue binding orders.