9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1915X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anner. 3. 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 maladministration 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 maladministration as alleged. Upon notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
