Partly allowed

K. Rajeevan v. the State Human Rights Commission Represented by Its Registrar

Kerala HC27 Jun 2014WP(C)/13702/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that while the Human Rights Commission cannot interfere with title disputes between private parties, it should not have quashed the 2nd Respondent's order. The 2nd Respondent was instructed not to interfere with the civil dispute, and the order in Ext.P2 was set aside, leaving the matter for civil court adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P2 order of 2nd Respondent set aside; direction given to 2nd Respondent not to interfere with civil dispute.

K. Rajeevan Vs the State Human Rights Commission… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/6TH ASHADHA, 1936`

¶5

WP(C).No. 13702 of 2014 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

-------------

¶8

K. RAJEEVAN, S/O.KARUTHAKUNJU, KONNAYIL HOUSE, PUTHENTHURA P.O., NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM- 691 588.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.SANIL KUMAR.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

-------------

¶12

1. THE STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.P APPAN ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD

¶13

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 014.

¶14

2. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM 1.

¶15

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NEENDAKARA VILLAGE, NENDAKARA -691 588.

¶16

4. L.SAJITHA, VADAKKEMURIKKINAL VEEDU, PUTHENTHURA P.O., PANNAYKKAL THURUTHU, NEENDAKARA- 691 588.

¶17

R4 BY ADV. SMT.M.A.ZOHRA

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN

¶19

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMED SHAFI.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

rvs/

¶22

WP(C).No. 13702 of 2014 (K)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶25

------------------------

¶26

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22-07-2013. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22-05-2014.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶28

-----------------------

NIL.

/true copy/

P.A.TO JUDGE

rvs/

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

W.P.C.No.13702 of 2014

¶36

Dated this the 27th day of June, 2014

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Petitioner has approached this Court for a declartion that

¶39

the 2^nd respondent has no authority to interfere with the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent.

¶40

The facts involved in the above case would disclose that

¶41

the 4^th respondent had approached the 1^st respondent inter alia contending that though she had acquired certain item of property with the funds made available by the Panchayath, and she intended to construct a building with the funds provided under a scheme for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes namely Indira Avas Yojana, the said funds are not being allotted on account of the fact the the petitioner was blocking the pathway to her property. According to the 4^th respondent, the document in her favour clearly indicated the existence of right of way through 1.46 Ares of land, which the petitioner is preventing by constructing a fence in the said pathway. The 1^st respondent having taken into consideration the plight of the petitioner, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the claim of

¶42

W.P.(C) No.13702 of 2014

¶43

¶44

the petitioner and pass appropriate orders.

¶45

The 2^nd respondent having made an enquiry through the Tahsildar proceeded on the basis of that the 4^th respondent had a right of way as claimed by her and there is no other alternative way as well. Hence he directed the petitioner to make available the said pathway to the 4^th respondent.

¶46

The main contention raised by the petitoner is regarding the jurisdiction of the Commission as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer to have passed such an order especially when the issue involved is a civil dispute between the parties. That apart, it is contended that the petitioner had already filed a suit before the Munsif Court seeking injuction restraining the 4^th respondent from interfering with the right of the petitioner in respect of the property obtained by her as per a seperate sale deed. According to the petitioner, no right of way is available for the 4^th respondent and if at all she has any claim, the same has to be adjudicated by a civil court and cannot be a basis of an enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is

¶47

W.P.(C) No.13702 of 2014

¶48

¶49

contended that the Revenue Divisional Officer’s powers cannot be extended to resolving private disputes, in so far as the claim of the 4^th respondent is not through a public road or a public pathway.

¶50

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent would submit that the Human Right Commission has exercised power, taking into account the plight of the 4^th respondent. She has obtained the land through the scheme of the Government viz. EMS (SC) scheme, which is available to Scheduled Caste members and now that funds have been allocated for constructing building, she is unable to proceed with the same on account of the dispute with the petitioner.

¶51

Learned Government Pleader would submit that the

¶52

Revenue Divisional Officer has passed an order after conducting neccessary enquiry and after hearing all the parties concerned.

¶53

Learned counsel for the 4^th respondent would submit

¶54

that going by the available documents it is evident that , the 4^th respondent has a right of way through a portion of the property,

¶55

W.P.(C) No.13702 of 2014

¶56

¶57

which is now occupied by the petitioner.

¶58

The Human Right Commission had taken note of the humanitarian aspect involved in the matter since the 4^th respondent is a widow and member of Scheduled Caste. If she is allotted the property, she is also entitled to construct a building there. If the property has a right of way it is definitely for the authorities to consider as to how her grievence has to be redrressed. But, when there is a dispute regarding right of the way or title between two private parties, it may not be advisable for the Revenue Divisional Officer to interfere and then direct the petitioner to open up the pathway in question. When such dispute arises, the remedy available for any party to the dispute is to approach the civil court for appropriate reliefs. Since the petitioner has already approached the civil court for injuction, it shall be open for the 4^th respondent to agitate her rights by filing appropriate counter claim or to file a seperate suit claiming right of way in respect of the property and also to obtain necessary interim orders.

¶59

W.P.(C) No.13702 of 2014

¶60

¶61

Therefore, without interfering with the order passed by the 1^st respondent, I am of the view that the 2^nd respondent should not have interfered with the said civil dispute. Hence Ext.P2 is set aside, leaving open the right of the 4^th respondent to approach the civil court for appropriate reliefs. If the 4^th respondent approaches the civil court, it shall be considered as early as possible.

¶62

Sd/

¶63

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶64

jm/

K. Rajeevan v. the State Human Rights Commission Represented by Its Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Rajeevan v. the State Human Rights Commission Represented by Its Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.K.Raghavan Vs Station Commander

N.Jayakumar Vs Central Public Information Officer

Sasidharan K.B Vs Sub Registrar

Thampan Thomas Vs District Collector

Nisha.S. Vs State of Kerala

Shahana M.Bashir Vs the District Collector