ORDER : T.R. Ravi, J. 1. The writ petition has been filed praying to quash Ext. P8 order passed by the Lok Ayukta in Complaint No. 1331 of 2009 to the extent it directs the petitioner to re-assign certain lands in favour of legal heirs of Smt. Ammu. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in the writ petition is covered by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Sudha Devi K. v. District Collector, Trivandrum and others reported in, 2017 (2) KLT 1127 ]. The Division Bench has, in the above case, held that on a plain reading of Section 12(1) of the Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, it is clear that the Lok Ayukta can only make a report to the concerned authority with recommendations and that no positive directions can be issued by the Upa Lok Ayukta or Lok Ayukta, as they are not such a statutory authority. The Division Bench specifically held that Lok Ayukta has only recommendatory jurisdiction'. 4. In the case on hand, the complaint before the Lok Ayukta was at the instance of the legal heirs of one deceased Ammu and the allegation was that properties which belonged to deceased Ammu was acquired and that during the acquisition, 4 cents of land and Rs. 40,000/- towards cost of construction of building were granted to deceased Ammu. The 5th respondent was allotted the said 4 cents of land on the basis of an, alleged relinquishment of the rights by the legal heirs of deceased Ammu. The claim of the complainants before the Lok Ayukta was that there was no such relinquishment and the property should be re-allotted to the legal heirs of deceased Ammu. 5. In Ext. P8 order, the Lok Ayukta has specifically directed the 4th respondent before it to redress the grievance of the complainants by re-allotting the lands in question to all the legal heirs of deceased Ammu. That is to say that, the Lok Ayukta has in excess of its jurisdiction issued positive directions to the petitioner. Going by the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Sudha Devi's case (supra), such a direction could not have been issued. The petitioner has also produced Ext. That is to say that, the Lok Ayukta has in excess of its jurisdiction issued positive directions to the petitioner. Going by the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Sudha Devi's case (supra), such a direction could not have been issued. The petitioner has also produced Ext. P11 representation submitted by the legal heirs of deceased Ammu before the District Collector, Trivandrum for necessary reliefs. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed, quashing Ext. P8 to the extent it issues positive directions to the petitioner to re-allot the land in question. It is made clear that the setting aside of Ext. P8 will not in any way affect the rights of respondents 2 to 6 who were the complainants before the Lok Ayukta for continuing their claim before the appropriate authority.