JUDGMENT : S.Manikumar, J. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs: “i. To set aside Ext. P5 order and allow the petitioner to implead affected parties and prosecute the matter before the Lok Ayukta. ii. Direct the Lok Ayukta to reconsider Ext. P3 complaint after affording petitioner an opportunity to implead the affected persons.” 2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as under: 2.1. Petitioner has lodged a complaint before the Kerala Lok Ayukta on 16.02.2012, highlighting the misappropriation of Government properties, by creating title documents, with the active connivance of respondents therein – Government officials. Said complaint was taken on file by the Lok Ayukta on 25.04.2012. 2.2. The Lok Ayukta admitted the matter on 28.06.2012, and the respondents have filed their respective statements. 2.3. When the matter was taken up, the Upa Lok Ayukta, without acceding to the request of the petitioner to permit him to implead the affected persons, has dismissed the complaint vide Exhibit-P5 order dated 7.3.2014 in Complaint No.1085/2012, holding that the affected persons are not in the party array. Petitioner was not even permitted to adduce additional evidence. 3. Being aggrieved by Exhibit P5 order passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta dated 7.3.2014, instant writ petition is filed, inter alia, on the following grounds: A. The Upa Lok Ayukta should not have taken a hyper technical view while disposing of the application before it, even though the statute mandates the Lok Ayukta to seek for ends of justice rather than to be hyper technical. B. At any rate, the Lok Ayukta ought to have allowed petitioner herein to implead the necessary parties rather than in dismissing the complaint, by the impugned order, on technical reasons. C. The private parties were not impleaded, as the petitioner had not sought any relief against them and had sought action only against the officials, who were guilty of misdeeds. D. The Lok Ayukta should have taken into the consideration the fact that the public property is being misappropriated for personal ends and petitioner had sought action against the officials who were hand in glove with the vested interests who misappropriated the property. 4. Refuting the allegations made in the writ petition, the District Registrar (General), Thrissur, respondent No.1, has filed a counter affidavit dated 29.11.2014. 5. 4. Refuting the allegations made in the writ petition, the District Registrar (General), Thrissur, respondent No.1, has filed a counter affidavit dated 29.11.2014. 5. Relevant portions of the counter affidavit read as under: “A. It is respectfully submitted that Exhibit P3 Complaint was filed alleging that there were irregularities in the registration of Sale Deed bearing Registration No.1891/2006 of the Sub Registrar Office, Chalakkudy. As per the recitals in Sale Deed No.1891/2006, it is stated that the property was obtained by St. Mary's Ferone Church, Chalakkudy by virtue of document No.1727/1058 M.E. of the Sub Registry Office, Mukundapuram. B. It is hereby submitted that an enquiry was conducted by the Sub Registrar, Chalakkudy regarding the allegation leveled by the petitioner. The certified copy of the Document No.1727/1058 was verified and found that the document is a Sale Deed converting certain wet lands to the Chalakkudy Church. The number denoted in the above Document is 127 of Kizhakke Chalakkudy Village. The explanation was also called for from the Document Writer Smt. Jolly who prepared Sale Deed No. 1891/2006. The document Writer deposed that the document in question was prepared after thorough verification of the certified copy of the prior deed and certificate issued from the Village Office, Kizhakke Chalakkudy stating the correct Survey Number of the property as 528. The document writer submitted the certified copy of the Document No.1727/1058 M.E registered at Sub Registry Office, Mukundapuram which is later renamed as Sub Registry Office, Irinjalakkuda. She also produced a certificate issued from the Village Office, Kizhakke Chalakkudy certifying that the Survey number of the properties covered under Document No.1727/1058 ME is 528. She also produced copies of location sketch and tax receipts pertaining to the property covered by Document No.1727/1058 ME. On a careful examination of all the relevant aspects including the deposition of document writer, Sub Registrar, Chalakkudy came to the conclusion that there is no irregularity in the registration proceedings in respect of Sale Deed No.1891/2006 at Sub Registry Office, Chalakkudy. C. It is hereby submitted that the 1st respondent is not in any way connected with the registration of Document No.1891/2006 of the Sub Registry Office, Chalakkudy. The registration of the above document at the office of the 2nd respondent was by fully complying with the provisions of Registration Act and Rules. C. It is hereby submitted that the 1st respondent is not in any way connected with the registration of Document No.1891/2006 of the Sub Registry Office, Chalakkudy. The registration of the above document at the office of the 2nd respondent was by fully complying with the provisions of Registration Act and Rules. The complaint preferred by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur as Crl.M.P. No.555/2010 has been dismissed and the petition filed before this Hon'ble Court challenging the order in Crl.M.P. 555/2010 was also dismissed. There is absolutely no basis for Exhibit P3 complaint. The Hon'ble Lok Ayukta Kerala considered all the contentions raised by the petitioner and found that Exhibit P3 complaint was not maintainable as the same is barred by limitation.” 6. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar M. Sivaraman, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the material on record. 7. Exhibit P5 order, dated 07.03.2014, passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta reads as under: “7. Except raising the contention that originals of the documents produced along with the written comments of the respondents are fake and forged, complainant has not produced any evidence to substantiate his allegation. No contention other than the one mentioned above touching the genuineness of the prior deed, has been raised to the effect that the respondents have committed any illegality or irregularity in the matter of registration of documents. Hence, there is no scope for finding fault with the respondents in their due discharge of the official duties. 8. It has come on record that petition filed before the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Trissur was dismissed on the ground that persons alleged to have executed the sale deeds were not made parties to that petition. Action was sought against the officers of the Registration Department and the Revenue Department. Even after getting an adverse order rejecting the petition, the complainant has not chosen to implead the affected persons in this complaint. It is possible to contend, though untenable, that the complainant has not sought any relief against the seller or purchaser of the property but has confined action against respondents 1 to 3 who are public servants as defined in Section 2(o) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act. It is possible to contend, though untenable, that the complainant has not sought any relief against the seller or purchaser of the property but has confined action against respondents 1 to 3 who are public servants as defined in Section 2(o) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act. Principles of natural justice demand that persons who may be affected in the event of this Forum making findings adverse to them are also to be made parties, because, behind their back no valid finding or order can be made. Hence, the absence of the executants of the documents on the party array in this complaint, is a fatal defect. 9. Documents were registered on 24.3.2006 and 5.4.2006 respectively. Allegations made in the complaint pertain to the action of the respondents on the aforesaid two dates. This complaint was filed on 25.4.2012. Time taken for filing the complaint is more than five years from the date of the alleged events. As far as complaints involving allegations are concerned, they are to be preferred within five years from the date of the incident or the event that form the basis of the allegation. As per Section 8(2)(c) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act any complaint involving an allegation made after the expiry of five years from the date on which the action complained against is alleged to have taken place cannot be entertained for the purpose of investigation by this Forum. Complainant has not filed any application to condone the delay in filing the complaint. On that ground also further investigation in this complaint is impermissible. For reasons stated above, complaint is dismissed.” 8. Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 is an Act to make provision for the appointment and functions of certain authorities for making enquiries into any action (including any omission and commission in connection with or arising out of such action) relatable to matters specified in List II or List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India taken by or on behalf of the Government of Kerala or certain public authorities in the State of Kerala in certain cases and for matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto. 9. Section 8 of the Lok Ayukta Act speaks about matters not subject to investigation and it reads as under: “8. 9. Section 8 of the Lok Ayukta Act speaks about matters not subject to investigation and it reads as under: “8. Matters not subject to investigation.- (1) Except as hereinafter provided, the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta shall not conduct any investigation under this Act, in the case of a complaint involving a grievance in respect of any action, if such action relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule. (2) The Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta shall not investigate,- (a) any action in respect of which a formal and public inquiry has been ordered with the prior concurrence of the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta, as the case may be; (b) any action in respect of a matter which has been referred to inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Central Act 60 of 1952); (c) any complaint involving an allegation made after the expiry of five years from the date on which the action complained against is alleged to have taken place: Provided that a complaint referred to in clause(c) may be entertained by the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta, as the case may be, after the expiry of the period referred to in the said clause, if the complainant satisfies that he had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within the period specified in that clause. (3) In the case of any complaint involving a grievance, nothing in this Act shall be construed as empowering the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta to question any administrative action involving the exercise of a discretion, except where he is satisfied that the elements involved in the exercise of the discretion are absent to such an extent that the discretion can prima facie be regarded as having been improperly exercised.” 10. Section 9 of the Act, 1999 deals with provisions relating to complaints and investigation, and the same reads as under: “9. Provisions relating to complaints and investigations.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, any person may make a complaint under this Act to the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta. (2) Every complaint shall be made in such form and in such manner, as may be prescribed, and shall be supported by an affidavit. Provisions relating to complaints and investigations.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, any person may make a complaint under this Act to the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta. (2) Every complaint shall be made in such form and in such manner, as may be prescribed, and shall be supported by an affidavit. (3) Where the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta proposes, after making such preliminary inquiry as he deems fit, to conduct any investigation under this Act, he- (a) shall forward a copy of the complaint to the public servant and the competent authority concerned; (b) shall afford to such public servant, an opportunity to offer his comments on such complaint; (c) may make such orders as to the safe custody of documents relevant to the investigation, as he deems fit. (4) Save as aforesaid, the procedure for conducting any such investigation shall be such, and may be held, either in public or in camera,as the Lok Ayukta or the Upa-Lok Ayukta, as the case may be considers appropriate in the circumstances of the case. (5) The Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta may, in his discretion, refuse to investigate or discontinue investigation of, any complaint involving a grievance or an allegation, if in his opinion- (a) the complaint is frivolous or vexatious or is not made in good faith; (b) there are no sufficient grounds for investigating or, as the case may be, for continuing the investigation; or (c) other remedies are available to the complainant and in the circumstances of the case it would be more proper for the complainant to avail of such remedies. (6) In any case where the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta decides not to entertain a complaint or to discontinue any investigation in respect of a complaint he shall record his reasons therefore and communicate the same to the complainant and the public servant concerned. (7) The conduct of an investigation under this Act against a public servant in respect of any action shall not affect such action or any power or duty of any other public servant to take further action with respect to any matter subject to investigation. (7) The conduct of an investigation under this Act against a public servant in respect of any action shall not affect such action or any power or duty of any other public servant to take further action with respect to any matter subject to investigation. (8) In every proceeding before the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayyukta under this Act, the State shall be made a party thereto and the Government shall appoint a Special Attorney and one or more senior Government Pleaders to represent the Government before the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta, as the case may be on the terms and conditions prescribed: Provided that it shall not be necessary that state should be made a party in cases where Government interests are not involved.” 11. In G. Narayanan Nair v. State of Kerala reported in 2017 (1) KLT 959 , a learned single Judge of this Court observed that, as for limitation, Section 8(2)(c) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 mandates that "Lok Ayukta shall investigate no complaint involving an allegation "made after the expiry of five years from the date on which the action complained against is alleged to have taken place." 12. Indisputably, the documents have been registered on 24.03.2006 and 5.4.2006 respectively. 13. Giving due consideration to the facts of the case projected and the statutory period of limitation, vide a detailed order in Complaint No.1085/2012 dated 7.3.2014, Upa Lok Ayukta held that the complaint is barred by limitation, provided in the Statute. 14. We have considered the submissions, on the grounds raised, and are of the view that writ petitioner has not made out a case for interference with the impugned order. In the light of the above discussion and decision, the impugned order dated 7.3.2014 is sustained. Writ petition is dismissed.