J. Chelameswar, C.J.

1. This is an appeal preferred by the State aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.08.2009 in W.P.(C) No.23779/2009. The first respondent herein was the petitioner in the above mentioned writ petition. He purchased an extent of 45 cents of land in various survey numbers in Kollamula village, Ranni Taluk by sale deed No.778/2002 of Ranni Sub Registrar Office for a total consideration of `1,00,000/-. The above mentioned document was duly registered by the Sub Registrar, Ranni. However, the Sub Registrar doubted the correctness of the valuation of the property and referred the case to the District Registrar. The District Registrar, in exercise of the statutory power under Section 45B(2) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, held an enquiry and came to the conclusion that the real value of the property held by the said document is `2,00,000/-, but not `1,00,000/-, as stated in the document.

Therefore, he ordered the first respondent to remit the deficit stamp duty of `10,000/- and deficit registration fee of `2,000/-.

2. Aggrieved by such an order, the first respondent made a complaint before the second respondent, the Kerala Lok Ayukta. By order dated 08.05.2006, Lok Ayukta declared that the decision of the District Registrar is null and void on the ground that the District Registrar has no jurisdiction or authority to initiate the proceedings impugned before the Lok Ayukta. The learned Lok Ayukta issued certain further directions to the Government, which are not necessary for the present purpose. It may be mentioned here that the said order is styled as a report under Section 12(1) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999.

3. Aggrieved by the said order/report, the State of Kerala and the other two appellants, who are the officers of the State, approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) No.23779/2009, in substance, challenging the above mentioned report of the Lok Ayukta on the ground that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta.

4. By the judgment under appeal, a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:-

" I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in relation to Ext.P3 order by the Upa Lok Ayukta, in so far as it relates to Complaint No.2221/2005, essentially for the reason that the amount involved in the said complaint, by way of alleged deficit stamp duty is only `10,000/-.

In these circumstances, I decline jurisdiction, leaving the contentions of the petitioners open. Writ petition is dismissed subject to the above observations."

Hence, the appeal.

5. The learned senior Government Pleader, Sri.Benny Gervasis, appearing for the appellants, submitted that, the learned Judge grossly erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of the financial stakes involved in the litigation are paltry. The learned Government Pleader submitted that, the question raised by the State is having far reaching consequences and a pure question of law and it goes to the very root of the order impugned in the writ petition and, therefore, the judgment under appeal is unsustainable.

6. Though the first respondent is served, he did not choose to appear and contest the matter when the matter is taken up.

7. Section 45B(1) of the Kerala Stamp Act authorises the registering officer to whom an instrument of transfer of property is presented for registration to refer the instrument to the Collector, if the registering officer has reason to believe that the value of the property or the consideration by the transfer, as the case may be, has not been truly set forth in the instrument. Upon such reference, the Collector held an enquiry, after giving an opportunity to the parties concerned, and determined the value of the consideration of the property, ie, the subject matter of transfer. Sub-section (2) of Section 45B obligates the person liable to pay the duty to pay the deficit amount of duty, if any, found by the Collector. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 45B read as follows:-

"45B. Instruments undervalued how to be dealt with - (1) If the Registering Officer, while registering any instrument transferring any property, has reason to believe that the value of the property or the consideration, as the case may be, has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of the value or consideration, as the case may be, and the proper duty payable thereon.

(2) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Court, by order, determine the value of the property or the consideration and the duty aforesaid; and the deficient amount of duty, if any, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty and, on the payment of such duty, the Collector shall endorse a certificate of such payment on the instrument under his seal and signature."

8. Sub-section (3) of Section 45B also authorizes the Collector to suo motu exercise the power described earlier, the details of which may not be necessary for the purpose of the present appeal, as it is the case arising upon a reference from the registering authority to the Collector.

The expression 'Collector' is defined under Section 2(c) as follows:-

" S.2(c). "Collector" means the Chief Officer in charge of the Revenue Administration of a District; and includes any other officer whom the Government may, by notification in the Gazette, appoint in this behalf."

9. In the instant case, the proceedings impugned before the Lok Ayukta dated 28.07.2005 is issued by the District Registrar, who is the other officer appointed by the government by notification contemplated under Section 2(c) extracted above.

10. It may also be stated here that, from the proceedings of the District Registrar referred to above, it appears that, though the first respondent was put on notice as required under Section 45B(2), the first respondent never appeared before the District Registrar and placed his defence against the proposed re-determination of the value of the property.

11. However, the first respondent preferred the complaint before the Lok Ayukta. Going by the tenor of the report made by the Lok Ayukta under Section 12(1) of the Act dated 08.05.2006, the gist of the complaint is as follows:-

"2. According to the complainant, he purchased 1.91 hectares of land comprised in Block No.4, Old Survey No.240/IA and Re- survey No.188 of Edakkunnam Village, Kanjirappally Taluk for a total consideration of `9,50,000/- as per the sale deed No.4547/04 of Kanjirappally Sub Registry Office. He has mentioned the true, proper and correct sale consideration in the document and paid the requisite stamp duty and registration fee payable on the document. At the time of registration of the document, no objection was raised by the Sub Registrar regarding the value of the property assigned as per the document.

Subsequently, a notice in Form No.II under Rule 4 of the Kerala Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, in proceedings UV(3)/1887/04/KPLY is issued by second respondent to the complainant calling upon him to pay the deficit stamp duty of `45,840/- and the deficit registration fee of `22,920/- or to file his representations against the notice. The notice issued by the 2nd respondent District Registrar is illegal being without jurisdiction and without complying with the statutory requirements. Therefore, impugned proceedings being illegal, null and void is liable to be quashed."

12. It appears from the above that the first respondent challenged the decision of the District Registrar on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and with the alleged non compliance with the statutory procedure of requirements.

13. We may also mention that the Lok Ayukta recorded a finding that the District Registrar has no jurisdiction or authority to initiate the proceedings in question before him. At paragraph 10 of the report, it is recorded as follows:-

"10. As it is patent that the District Registrar has no jurisdiction or authority to initiate proceedings to determine the market value of the property sought to be conveyed and call upon the parties to pay the stamp duty and registration fee on the basis of the value of the property estimated by him the impugned proceedings initiated by the District Registrar against the complainants in these cases is without jurisdiction, null and void."

14. In coming to such a conclusion, the Lok Ayukta placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Collectors of Stamps Vs. Hemalatha [JT/2003

(6) SC 91]. The learned Lok Ayukta did not make any reference to the provisions of the Kerala Stamp Act in coming to the conclusion that the District Registrar is without jurisdiction in issuing the proceedings impugned before the Lok Ayukta.

15. We are not really concerned with the competence, correctness or otherwise of the proceedings of the District Registrar impugned before the Lok Ayukta. In the instant appeal and the writ petition, the question that this Court is concerned is the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta to go into such questions. As already noticed, the judgment under appeal does not decide the question. We are of the opinion that the question of jurisdiction ought not to be avoided on the ground of the meagreness of the financial stakes involved in this case. Questions of jurisdiction of judicial and quasi-judicial authorities are questions in the realm of public law. Adjudication of the question of law raised becomes the duty of courts which are created to ensure the rule of law. If the authority does not have the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute brought before it, permitting such an examination would only create chaos in the administration.

16. Coming to the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta, Section 7 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, describes the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta which authorises the Lok Ayukta "to investigate any action which is taken by or with the general or specific approval of the various persons specified under Section 7 in any case where a complaint involving a grievance or an allegation is made in respect of such action".

17. The expressions 'grievance' and 'allegation' are defined under Sections 2(h) and 2(b) respectively as follows:-

" S.2(h). "grievance" means a claim by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of mal- administration.

S.2(b). "allegation", in relation to a public servant, means any affirmation that such public servant,-

(i) has abused his position as such public servant to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person;

(ii) was actuated in the discharge of his functions as such public servant by personal interest or improper or corrupt motives; or

(iii) is guilty of corruption, favouritism, nepotism or lack of integrity in his capacity as such public servant."

18. It can be seen from the definitions that the expression "allegation" necessarily involves an improper motive in law such as corruption, favouritism, nepotism, etc. whereas "grievance" is a claim that a person sustained injustice or undue hardship as a consequence of mal-administration. "Mal-administration" itself is defined under Section 2(k) as follows:-

"S.2(k) . "mal-administration" means action taken or purporting to have been taken in the exercise of administrative functions in any case where,-

(i) such action or the administrative procedure or practice adopted in such action is unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory; or

(ii) there has been wilful negligence or undue delay in taking such action or the administrative procedure or practice adopted in such action involves undue delay."

19. The power purported to have exercised by the District Registrar by the proceedings impugned before the Lok Ayukta may or may not be strictly within the jurisdiction of the District Registrar. It is a question which we do not propose to go into the instant appeal. For the purpose of the present appeal, it is sufficient to note that, even acts of erroneous exercise of an authority purportedly conferred by a statute, in our opinion, cannot be classified as mal-administration within the meaning of the Lok Ayukta Act.

It is clear from the language of the definition of the expression 'mal-administration' that "unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory" action taken or purportedly taken in exercise of administrative functions alone amount to mal-administration. The power conferred under Section 45B in our opinion is clearly a quasi-judicial function. It may be stated here that a decision of the District Registrar under Section 45B(2) is an appealable decision under Section 45B(4). Therefore, if the complainant before the Lok Ayukta is of the opinion for any reason that the decision of the District Registering Officer is beyond the jurisdiction conferred under Section 45B or for any other reason untenable in law, the same could have been validly raised before the appellate authority referred to above apart from various other remedies indicated above.

20. In the background of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the complaint made before the Lok Ayukta does not contain any 'allegation' or 'grievance' within the meaning of those expressions occurring in the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999.

21. For the above mentioned reasons, we are of the opinion that the instant appeal is required to be allowed.

22. Therefore, writ appeal is allowed. As a consequence, the writ petition stands allowed and the order impugned in the writ petition ie, the report of the Lok Ayukta referred to above, stands set aside.

23. In view of our conclusion, we also deem it appropriate that, if the first respondent is aggrieved by the proceedings of the District Registrar in re-determining the value of the property, it is open to him to approach the appellate authority within a period of thirty days from today as the first respondent is bonafide pursuing other remedies though the remedies are found to be untenable in law.