The State has come up with this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the Kerala Lok Ayuktha directing them to issue patta in respect of the land assigned to the 2nd respondent within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 2. The 2nd respondent approached the 1st respondent Kerala Lok Ayuktha with Complaint No.742/2007 alleging that an extent of 19.27 ares of land comprised in Sy. No.1491/1 in Elankunnapuzha village (now Puthuvype village) was assigned to her as per LA 262/1976. However, the patta was not issued to her in spite of several requests. Thereafter, the 1st respondent by impugned order directed to issue patta. The petitioner alleges that the said order is unsustainable as it goes beyond the powers of Lok Ayuktha. The petitioner further alleges that the land assignment made in favour of the 2nd respondent complainant was totally irregular and was in violation of the provisions of the Act. According to them, even if any assignment was made it was liable to be cancelled as per the conditions of the assignment order.
3. Arguments have been heard.
4. The 2nd respondent was constrained to approach the 1st respondent since several requests were made by her to the Tahsildar concerned for the issuance of patta in the light of the order in LA 262/1976 assigning 19.27 ares of land comprised in Sy. No.1491/1 of Puthuvype village (erstwhile Elankunnapuzha village), could not evoke any positive response. Later she approached the Chief Minister's Public Contact Programme and in response, the District Collector informed that suitable measures would be taken. But, till now the patta in respect of the property in question has not been issued.
5. On receipt of notice from the 1st respondent, the Tahsildar, Kochi filed a counter affidavit before the 1st respondent wherein it was stated that though the assignment order was issued on January 1976, payment of land value, survey charges etc were made only in the year 1977. As per the condition in para 14 of the order of assignment, the value of land as well as trees has to be remitted within three months from the date of sanctioning registry otherwise the registry is liable to be cancelled; it was contended. It was further contended that on enquiry it was revealed that the 2nd respondent is not in possession of the land in question and that the family members of the 2nd respondent were in possession of 9.91 ares of land comprised in other survey numbers in Moothakunnam village, Paravur taluk. It was also contended that the complaint is a retired teacher having annual income of ₹68,996/-. Therefore, the stand taken by the State was that the 2nd respondent was financially sound and was not eligible for assignment on concessional rate.
6. It is evident from the impugned order that the 1st respondent Lok Ayuktha has gone through the assignment order which was marked as Ext.C1 in the complaint. A sum of ₹115/-
was seen ordered towards the land value, survey and demarcation charges of the said land. Copy of the receipt evidencing the payment was produced as Ext.C1 before the 1st respondent.
7. The stand taken by the petitioner is that there were certain irregularities in the proceedings initiated for assignment of land in question. This contention was not acceptable to the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent who got assignment of the Government land in 1976 was told after a lapse of so many years that the procedure followed for the assignment of land is irregular and, therefore, she is not entitled to get patta. The petitioner State has no case that the 2nd respondent was responsible for the alleged irregularities.
8. It was rightly found by the 1st respondent that had there been a case that the order of assignment was liable to be cancelled, the procedures for cancellation of the assessment should have been initiated then and there. As the order of assignment has not been cancelled under Rule 8(3) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that the 2nd respondent is not entitled to get patta.
9. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the 1st respondent does not have any adjudicatory power. In support of the argument, the learned Government Pleader invited my attention to the decision of a Division Bench in State of Kerala v. Bernard [2003 (3) KLT 254]. Of course, the Division Bench observed that the Lok Ayuktha is not empowered to make any binding order which is enforceable as against the public servants whose action is under investigation or the competent authority or the State Government. In other cases, his role is confined to investigating the grievance, to satisfy himself as to its correctness, and thereafter recommending the remedial measures to the competent authority.
10. Here, in this case, there was inaction on the part of the Tahsildar to issue patta consequent to the assignment order in the name of the 2nd respondent which was obtained long back.
The same has not been cancelled so far, for reason best known to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the definite view that the 1st respondent was perfectly justified in commanding the authority concerned to issue patta in terms of the order of assignment under the land assignment proceedings.
Therefore, the writ petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.
krj A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE