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

The HC set aside the Ombudsman's order directing cancellation of a gift deed and revenue record modifications. The court held the Ombudsman lacked ... Enquiry into allegations against elected members and officers of local bodies - Ombudsman jurisdiction in relation to matters pending before a Court - bar on complaints filed after five years - power of Ombudsman to refer criminal irregularities and recommend departmental or recovery actionOmbudsman jurisdiction in relation to matters pending before a Court - direction to cancel documents and effect change in revenue records - Complaint against officers concerning title and alleged irregularity could not be enquired into by the Ombudsman while the same subject-matter was pending before the Civil Court, and consequential directions to cancel documents and alter revenue records were beyond the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the scope of the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Ombudsman Act, 2014 and applied Section 10(2)(b), which expressly excludes matters pending before a Court from the Ombudsman's enquiry. The complainant before the Ombudsman was a defendant in the civil suit concerning title to the same property and the civil proceedings were already pending on the date of the complaint. In this factual matrix the Ombudsman was statutorily barred from enquiring into the dispute over title and, accordingly, could not lawfully pass directions to cancel the challenged document or to effect changes in revenue records. The impugned Order dated 27.09.2022, insofar as it directs cancellation of the document and alteration of revenue records, is therefore without jurisdiction and is set aside. [Paras 9, 10]Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to enquire into the matter seized by the Civil Court and the directions to cancel documents and change revenue records were without jurisdiction and set aside.Bar on complaints filed after five years - The complaint was barred by limitation as it was filed more than five years after the alleged occurrence. - HELD THAT: - Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Ombudsman Act, 2014 precludes enquiry into any complaint filed after the expiry of five years from the date on which the occurrence is said to have taken place. The alleged Gift Deed was executed in 2013 while the complaint before the Ombudsman was filed in 2019, exceeding the five-year period. Consequently, the complaint was barred by limitation and could not be entertained under the Act. [Paras 9]Complaint is time-barred under the five-year limitation and could not be enquired into by the Ombudsman.Final Conclusion: Writ petition allowed; impugned Order dated 27.09.2022 of the Ombudsman set aside as the matter was both pending before the Civil Court and the complaint was barred by the five-year limitation; connected petition closed with no costs. 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.