IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2471 of 2008(T)
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA LOK AYUKTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
... Respondent
2. SIVARAJAN, RAJ BHAVAN, PULIMKUDY,
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.P.GOPINATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :25/08/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 2471 of 2008
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 25th August, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram has filed this writ
petition challenging the order of the Kerala Lok Ayukta directing the
Collector to issue ‘patta’ to the 2nd respondent in respect of certain
properties, assignment for which the 2nd respondent has applied. The
primary contention raised in the writ petition is that the Lok Ayukta
does not have jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter, since no
mal-administration is involved. According to the petitioner, the
‘patta’ could not be issued in view of the fact that consent of SC & ST
Department should be obtained, which has not yet been obtained.
2. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would stoutly oppose
the contentions on the basis of R2(a) to R2(f) documents.
3. From the impugned orders, I find that the Lok Ayukta
proceeded on the basis of a submission made by the learned
Government Pleader in the matter. The Lok Ayukta construed the
submission made by the learned Government Pleader as an
undertaking that ‘patta’ itself would be issued within a short time. It
is because the patta was not so issued, the Lok Ayukta has passed a
further order to the effect that proceedings would be taken for
declaring the District Collector unfit to hold the post as contemplated
by Section 14 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act.
4. In the writ petition, it is averred that no such submission
was made by the learned Government Pleader undertaking to issue
patta. According to District Collector, what has been submitted was
that the procedure for taking a final decision in the matter is in
progress, which does not mean that the patta would be issued
positively to the 2nd respondent.
5. On a reading of Ext. P4 order of the Lok Ayukta, I find that
the Lok Ayukta has not categorically stated that the learned
W.P.C. No. 2471/2008 -: 2 :-
Government Pleader undertook to issue the patta. What is stated
therein is thus:
“Learned Government Pleader submits that action taken
report will be filed in the sense that petitioners will be given
pattayam within no time.”
From the same, to my mind, it appears that what has been submitted
by the learned Government Pleader is that action would be taken in
the matter of issue of patta to the 2nd respondent, which has been
construed by the Lok Ayukta as an undertaking that the 2nd
respondent would be given pattayam within no time.
6. In the above circumstances, I am inclined to hold that the
order of the Lok Ayukta should be construed as one directing the
District Collector to complete the proceedings for assignment within
a reasonable time. Therefore, I hold that Exts.P3 to P5 orders should
be construed as one directing the District Collector to complete the
proceedings for assignment of land in favour of the 2nd respondent
within a reasonable time.
7. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that
there are 17 others and the complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent
on behalf of all of them.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of
this writ petition directing the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram
to complete the proceedings in respect of the applications for
assignment of land submitted by the persons mentioned, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/