2023 (2) TMI 1341 - HC - Indian Laws

Gift deed cancellation order set aside due to lack of jurisdiction under Section 10 and time-barred complaint

G. Gopal Versus The Ombudsman, Tamilnadu Local Bodies Ombudsman, Chennai and Zonal Officer, Chennai C. Velmurugan Versus

The HC set aside the Ombudsman's order directing cancellation of a gift deed and revenue record modifications. The court held the Ombudsman lacked ... Violation of principles of natural justice - Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to entertain complaints against local bodies and officials - impugned Order has been passed on the basis of the complaint preferred by one Velmurugan alleging certain allegations against the staff of the local panchayat in not taking any steps to preserve the properties which were originally gifted to the Panchayat - HELD THAT:- Sub Clause 2 [b] of Section 10 of Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Ombudsman Act, 2014 makes it clear that Ombudsman shall not enquire into the matters in respect of any matter pending before the Court or any complaint filed after the expiry of five years from the date on which the occurrence is said to have taken place. It is relevant to note that the complainant before the Ombudsman is one Velmurugan, who is none other than the 12th defendant in the suit in O.S.No.120 of 2015, which has been renumbered as O.S.No.134 of 2022 and the same is pending before the Sub Court, Tiruvottiyur. When the Civil Court has already seized the matter in respect of the same issue, particularly, title over the property, in respect of which the Gift Deed has been executed and the suit is pending as on the date of the complaint, as per Section 10 [2] of the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Ombudsman Act, 2014, Ombudsman could not have enquired such a complaint. Besides, the alleged Gift Deed is executed in the year 2013. Whereas, the complaint has been filed in the year 2019, which is also beyond the period of 5 years and the same is barred by limitation as per Section 10 [3] [c] of the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Ombudsman Act, 2014. When statute itself bars enquiry in respect of the matters which has already been seized by the Civil Court, giving a direction to cancel the document and effecting the revenue records, is nothing but without any jurisdiction and cannot be permitted in the eye of law. The impugned Order passed by the first respondent dated 27.09.2022 is set aside - Petition allowed. Issues:Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to entertain complaints against local bodies and officials, violation of principles of natural justice, legality of the impugned Order dated 27.09.2022, interpretation of the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Ombudsman Act 2014, jurisdiction of the Civil Court over the same matter, limitation period for filing complaints.Analysis:The Writ Petition was filed to challenge the impugned Order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Ombudsman based on a complaint alleging negligence by the staff of the local panchayat in preserving gifted properties. The petitioner argued that the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to direct actions like canceling documents and changing revenue records. The Ombudsman justified its actions under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Ombudsman Act 2014, stating it can address complaints related to criminal offenses by officials. The petitioner contended that the complainant was involved in a civil suit over the same property, making the Ombudsman's jurisdiction questionable and the complaint time-barred.The Court examined the purpose of the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Ombudsman Act 2014, emphasizing its role in investigating allegations against local body members and officials. Sections 7 and 10 of the Act were crucial in determining the Ombudsman's powers and limitations. Section 7 allowed the Ombudsman to inquire into complaints of corruption or maladministration, while Section 10 outlined the procedure for handling complaints, including restrictions on matters pending before courts and complaints filed after five years from the alleged incident.The Court noted that the complainant in this case was a party to a civil suit concerning the same property dispute, which was pending before the Civil Court. As per Section 10 of the Act, the Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction to investigate such a complaint already under the Civil Court's purview. Additionally, the complaint was filed beyond the five-year limitation period, further invalidating the Ombudsman's actions. Consequently, the Court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the impugned Order and closing the related petition without costs.