State Human Rights Commission Not Authorised To Adjudicate Upon Disputes Of Title And Possession Of Property: Telangana HC
The Telangana High Court reaffirmed that Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (PHRA Act) does not confer power to the Commission to adjudicate upon matters related to the dispute of title and possession of the property.
The Court placed reliance on Supreme Court Judgement in the case of G.Manikyamma v. Roudri Cooperative Housing Society Limited [(2014) 15 SCC 197].
The Bench headed by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and comprising Justice T. Vinod Kumar, “Thus, in view of the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is evident that Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, does not authorise the Commission to adjudicate upon the disputes of title and possession of the property”.
Advocate S.V.S. Chowdary appeared on behalf of the Petitioners.
A Writ Petition was filed challenging the impugned order of the State Human Rights Commission (Commission). The Petitioner claimed to be the owner of a plot of land (disputed property). As per Petitioner’s contentions, he entered into an agreement with the developer and builder to construct villas on their land and claimed to be the owner of Villa 23 (scheduled property) as part of the share of the Petitioner. Respondent no. 2 claimed that the scheduled property was allotted to him by the developer through an oral agreement and, therefore, filed a complaint before the Commission. The Commission granted an ex-parte order directing the issuance of notice to the petitioners and also directed that the status quo with regard to the scheduled property shall be maintained.
The Bench noted that since the Commission granted the order without jurisdiction the impugned order cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Petition and quashed the impugned order of the Commission.
Cause Title: Mokkapati Srihari and Ors v Human Rights Commission
