JUDGMENT : SHAJI P. CHALY, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the Kozhikode Corporation and its Secretary challenging Exhibit P8 order dated 15.11.2012 passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P. No. 710 of 2011, whereby the petition filed by the first respondent herein was allowed, and the Corporation was directed to reimburse Rs. 1,12,612/- paid against enhanced compensation for the plot allotted, to the first respondent within two months from the date of order, and in case of failure to pay the same within the period above, to pay interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of the order till realization from the Corporation. 2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: The first respondent has purchased a plot bearing No. B-37 in a Jawahar Nagar Housing Scheme launched by the Corporation having an extent of Rs. 4.568 cents for a total consideration of Rs. 73,063/-. However, due to the enhancement of the compensation by the land acquisition reference court and by virtue of the provisions of the agreement of transfer and transfer deed, first respondent was compelled to pay a further amount of Rs. 1,12,612/-. In the meanwhile, the first respondent was constrained to sell the said plot to purchase a property somewhere else. Subsequently, there was a litigation between the Corporation and the allottees of the plot; and ultimately by virtue of a compromise, it was decided not to collect the excess amount. Therefore, the first respondent moved an application for return of an amount of Rs. 1,12,612/- on 23.09.2007, and as per a reply dated 01.01.2010, he was informed that the same was under consideration. According to the first respondent, since no action was taken, he filed a petition before the Ombudsman alleging maladministration on the part of the petitioners. 3. On the other hand, the petitioner Corporation contended that the first respondent is not entitled to get any benefit of the settlement for the reason that he sold out the land as early in 2003 at a higher value and the benefit should go only to those persons who have the property on the date of settlement. The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and the delay in filing the petition were also raised. 4. The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and the delay in filing the petition were also raised. 4. The Ombudsman, after considering the issues, held that it has got jurisdiction to entertain the petition, since there is inaction on the part of the Corporation in not granting amounts to the first respondent, which amounts to maladministration. It was further held that despite submission of application in the year 2007, the Corporation did not take a decision and instead, the first respondent was informed that the complaint is under consideration on 23.09.2007 and 01.01.2010. Accordingly, it was held that the cause of action would arise only when the Corporation and the Housing society decided to settle the matter, and ultimately when the matter was settled, the petitioner moved the application and therefore, there was no delay on the part of the first respondent in filing the application. 5. Accordingly, the subject matter was considered on its merit and held that the first respondent was the allottee and it was he who had deposited the excess amount asked for and therefore, the assignment of the property to a third party does not take away his right; and the first respondent cannot be isolated from enjoying the benefit given to the other allottees. It was further observed that on account of the intervention of the land acquisition reference court, the owners of the properties were liable to be paid an excess amount of Rs. 1,73,97,260/- and therefore, when the requisitioning authority has spent more amounts, certainly it has to be realised from the purchasers and therefore, the action of the Corporation cannot be found fault with; but subsequently, as per the compromise entered into, it was decided to sell 81.813 cents of property and it was sold by the Corporation to Lakshadweep Public Works Department for a consideration of Rs. 2,24,98,575/-. Therefore, the Ombudsman found that the Corporation had secured an excess amount of more than Rs. 51 lakhs from the transaction. Accordingly, the Corporation had decided not to collect the extra amount from the allottee of the plot. 6. 2,24,98,575/-. Therefore, the Ombudsman found that the Corporation had secured an excess amount of more than Rs. 51 lakhs from the transaction. Accordingly, the Corporation had decided not to collect the extra amount from the allottee of the plot. 6. The Ombudsman further found that the first respondent is also entitled to get the benefit of the said decision taken by the Corporation and merely because the first respondent has sold the property, that will not take away the right of the first respondent to raise a claim for the amount already paid by the first respondent to the Corporation on that count. It is, thus, challenging the legality and correctness of the order of the Ombudsman, the writ petition is filed. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Smt. Bindumol Joseph and Sri. H. Sivaraman for the first respondent, and perused the pleadings and material on record. 8. The sole question to be considered is whether any interference is required to the order of the Ombudsman. The paramount contention advanced by the petitioners is that Exhibit P3 complaint filed by the first respondent before the Ombudsman is a clear abuse of process of law and the Ombudsman did not have any power to entertain the complaint of the first respondent for return of money. It is also submitted that the order of the Ombudsman is in violation of Sections 271J, 271K, 271M and 271N of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (‘Act 1994’ for short) and therefore, violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. That apart, it is submitted that the Ombudsman has committed error by reviewing Exhibit P5 order dated 16.11.2011, whereby the Original Petition was dismissed. It is also submitted that since the first respondent has sold the property and substantially made profits from the sale, the first respondent is not entitled to get back the amounts paid by him. It is further submitted that since the property is sold, no claim can be raised by the first respondent. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the Ombudsman has correctly exercised the power conferred on it under Chapter XXVB of the Act, 1994. It is further submitted that since the property is sold, no claim can be raised by the first respondent. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the Ombudsman has correctly exercised the power conferred on it under Chapter XXVB of the Act, 1994. It is also pointed out that merely because the property was sold out, the claim for the amount paid by the first respondent to the Corporation would not be taken away. 11. On a perusal of Section 271F of the Act, 1994, it is clear that if there is maladministration, the Ombudsman is vested with powers to consider the same. As per clause (e)(ii) of Section 271F of the Act, 1994, where there is wilful negligence or delay in taking such action, or the administrative procedure or method regulating such action will cause undue delay it amounts to maladministration. 12. This is a case where the first respondent alleged that the petitioner Corporation has failed to return the amounts paid by him towards the enhanced land acquisition compensation. Since the petitioner Corporation has entered into a settlement with the purchasers, it was decided not to collect the enhanced land value from the allottees, for the reason that an extent of more than 81 cents of property was sold out to some other public body with a profit of Rs. 51 lakhs. It was accordingly that the first respondent raised the claim for return of the amount paid by him on that count. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the petition filed before the Ombudsman was maintainable under law, since there was evident maladministration on the part of the petitioners by not extending the said benefit to the first respondent. 13. Yet another question raised is, whether the Ombudsman is vested with the power to review Exhibit P5 order dismissing the Original Petition filed by the first respondent on an earlier date. By virtue of the power conferred under Section 271R of the Act, 1994, the State Government has framed the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions (Inquiry of Complaints and Service Conditions) Rules, 1999. As per Rules 23 thereto dealing with ‘rectification of the error in the order’ the Ombudsman is conferred with the power either suo motu or on application by any person to rectify or add, as the case may be, any error or omission in its order. As per Rules 23 thereto dealing with ‘rectification of the error in the order’ the Ombudsman is conferred with the power either suo motu or on application by any person to rectify or add, as the case may be, any error or omission in its order. 14. True, the proviso makes it clear that the concerned parties shall be allowed to submit their grievances before such rectification or addition is made. There is no case for the Corporation that the impugned Exhibit P8 order was passed reviewing Exhibit P5 order dated 16.11.2011, without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, there is no force in the said ground also. 15. The next aspect to be considered is whether the right of the first respondent to make a claim for the amount paid by him to the petitioner Corporation, would be taken away, merely because the first respondent sold the property. In my considered opinion, the claim of the first respondent is an ‘actionable claim’ recognized under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (‘Act 1882’ for short). Section 3 of the Act, 1882 defines ‘actionable claim’ and it reads thus: “actionable claim” means a claim to any debt, other than a debt secured by mortgage of 9 immovable property or by hypothecation or pledge of movable property, or to any beneficial interest in movable property not in the possession, either actual or constructive, of the claimant, which the Civil Courts recognise as affording grounds for relief, whether such debt or beneficial interest be existent, accruing, conditional or contingent.” 16. In fact, the said issue is guided by Section 130 of the Act, 1882, which reads thus: “130. In fact, the said issue is guided by Section 130 of the Act, 1882, which reads thus: “130. Transfer of actionable claim: (1) The transfer of an actionable claim [whether with or without consideration] shall be effected only by the execution of an instrument in writing signed by the transferor or his duly authorised agent, shall be complete and effectual upon the execution of such instruments, and thereupon all the rights and remedies of the transferor, whether by way of damages or otherwise, shall vest in the transferee, whether such notice of the transfer as is hereinafter provided be given or not: Provided that every dealing with the debt or other actionable claim by the debtor or other person from or against whom the transferor would, but for such instrument of transfer as aforesaid, have been entitled to recover or enforce such debt or other actionable claim, shall (save where the debtor or other person is a party to the transfer or has received express notice thereof as hereinafter provided) be valid as against such transfer. (2) The transferee of an actionable claim may, upon the execution of such instrument of transfer as aforesaid, sue or institute proceedings for the same in his own name without obtaining the transferor's consent to such suit or proceedings and without making him a party thereto. Exception - Nothing in this section applies to the transfer of a marine or fire policy of insurance or affects the provisions of section 38 of the Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938).” 17. On an analysis of the said provision, it is categoric and clear that merely because the property was sold out, that would not take away the right of the first respondent to claim the amount paid by him to the Corporation towards enhanced compensation, unless the said claim was transferred in writing. There is no case for the petitioners that the actionable claim of the first respondent was transferred in writing to the purchasers of the plot allotted to the first respondent, as is contemplated under the law. 18. Thus, the cumulative effect of the deliberation is that, the writ petition fails and, accordingly, is dismissed.