The Kerala High Court recently held that the Kerala State Minority Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain complaints seeking eviction of a person from property [Moideenkutty v. The Kerala State Minority Commission & Ors.]
Justice Easwaran S noted that the Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act, 2014 (Act) was enacted to ensure the welfare, protection, empowerment and educational advancement of minorities and not to decide private civil disputes relating to possession of property.
Referring to Section 9 of the Act which enumerates the functions of the commission, the Court found that none of the provisions empowered the Commission to pass eviction orders.
"The remedy of the second respondent is to invoke the jurisdiction of a competent civil court. Rather what is attempted is to bypass the civil remedy by filing an application before the Commission and that the Commissioner has overstepped its jurisdiction and issued Ext.P4 order requiring the petitioner to be evicted from the premises," the Court observed.
Only appropriate civil courts are empowered to issue directions regarding evictions in property disputes, the Court held.
The case arose from two sale deeds executed by petitioner Moideenkutty in favour of one Abdul Salam.
Moindeenkutty claimed that the documents had been obtained through fraud and undue influence.
Salam later approached the Minority Commission seeking action to evict Moideenkutty from the property covered by the sale deeds.
Acting on the complaint, the Commission directed eviction of Moideenkutty and also issued communications to revenue and police authorities for implementing the same.
Based on those directions, the Tahsildar issued a notice to Moideenkutty vacate the premises he was eventually evicted after inventory proceedings were conducted.
Before the High Court, Salam contended that the Commission had jurisdiction under Section 9(c) of the Act which empowers it to enquire into complaints relating to deprivation of social, economic, educational and linguistic rights of minorities.
However, the Court rejected this contention and held that Section 9(c) could not be interpreted as conferring power on the Commission to evict a person belonging to a minority community by bypassing the jurisdiction of civil courts.
The Court also noted that Section 9(e) clearly stipulated that the Commission can only make recommendations to the government and not issue unenforceable directions in private disputes.
The Court strongly criticised the Commission's conduct, questioning how it could entertain such a complaint and issue eviction orders without any statutory backing.
"Still further, the extent of overstepping of the jurisdiction of the Commissioner is evident from the fact that the Commissioner has gone ahead and instructed the revenue authorities as well as the police authorities to take such steps to evict the petitioner. The aforesaid action is clearly without jurisdiction and hence void and liable to be interfered with by this Court," the Court added
Accordingly, it quashed the eviction orders and declared that the complaint filed before the Commission was not maintainable.
The Court also directed the authorities to restore possession of the property to Moideenkutty within two days.
Moideenkutty was represented by advocates Luke J Chirayil, Zainudheen P, Chithra C Edadan, Jacob Victor, Neha Ramakrishnan, AR Thejas Krishna, and Aswanth SP.
Advocate Nagaraj Narayanan appeared for the Minority Commission.
Government pleader BS Syamanthak represented the State authorities.
[Read Order]