Telangana High Court
Sri T. Ajay Kumar Reddy vs Telangana State Human Rights ... on 23 December, 2021
Author: Satish Chandra Sharma
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, N.Tukaramji
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION Nos.29388 and 29389 of 2021
COMMON ORDER:(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma) Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the writ petitions were analogously heard and by this common order, they are being disposed of by this Court.
The facts of W.P.No.29388 of 2021 are reproduced as under:
The petitioner before this Court has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by the proceedings conducted by the Telangana State Human Rights Commission (TSHRC) in HRC No.5684 of 2021 and the order passed by the TSHRC dated 08.11.2021. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent No.2 herein, Rajesh Jain, submitted an application before the TSHRC on 08.11.2021 and on the same day, the TSHRC has passed an order. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced as under:
"Under the above facts and circumstances, the following Interim Reliefs are granted:-
1) Call the report from the Respondents 1 to 3,
2) Issue notice to the 4th respondent and also inform him over his cell, if available, about the filing of this petition by the petitioner, 2
3) The Respondents 1 to 3 are directed by considering the representations/complaints made by the petitioner and also to consider to restrain the 4th respondent and his person(s) from interfering with the land of the petition schedule property (levelling the land with JCB), belonging to the petitioner, in Sy.No.22/AA4 -
Ac.0.26gts, Sy.No.22/AA2 - Ac.0.26gts, Sy.No.22/AA3 - Ac.0.26gts (Total 2 acres) (as per the proceedings issued by the MRO, Shankarpalli Mandal, RR District in Proceedings No.B/2391/2020, dt.22.07.2020), bounded by NORTH:
land of the Vendee, SOUTH: land of Ajay Kumar Reddy and others, EAST: part of land in Sy.No.22 and WEST: land of Vendee (as per the Sale Deed dated 18.11.2019 between the petitioner and his vendor).
4) The respondent No.1 is directed to take necessary action on the representation made by the petitioner on 01.09.2021 conducting the survey and demarcation of the petition schedule land, belonging to the petitioner, basing on their Sale Deeds and revenue records, with a due notice the petitioner and the effected parties, including the 4th respondent, to avoid the dispute between them, in the interest of justice."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that the TSHRC does not have the jurisdiction in respect of property disputes. The TSHRC has gone to the extent in directing survey and demarcation of the property. The petitioner herein was one of the respondents in the complaint submitted to the TSHRC and in all fairness, a proper notice should have been issued to him before passing any such order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued before this Court that the TSHRC does not have jurisdiction in the matter to decide the property dispute, as has been done by passing an interim order. 3
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 herein has stated before this Court that a complaint was lodged to the Police in respect of the property and as there was inaction on the part of the Police, the respondent No.2 was left with no other choice, except to approach the TSHRC and the TSHRC has rightly passed the order and no case for interference is made out in the matter.
The Supreme Court in the case of N.C.Dhoundial v. Union of India1 in paragraph 14 has held as under:
"We cannot endorse the view of the Commission. The Commission which is an unique expert body is, no doubt, entrusted with a very important function of protecting the human rights, but, it is needless to point out that the Commission has no unlimited jurisdiction nor does it exercise plenary powers in derogation of the statutory limitations. The Commission, which is the creature of statute, is bound by its provisions. Its duties and functions are defined and circumscribed by the Act. Of course, as any other statutory functionary, it undoubtedly has incidental or ancillary powers to effectively exercise its jurisdiction in respect of the powers confided to it but the Commission should necessarily act within the parameters prescribed by the Act creating it and the confines of jurisdiction vested in it by the Act. The Commission is one of the fora which can redress the grievances arising out of the violations of human rights. Even if it is not in a position to take up the enquiry and to afford redressal on account of certain statutory fetters or handicaps, the aggrieved persons are not without other remedies. The assumption underlying the observation in the concluding passage extracted above proceeds on an incorrect premise that the person wronged by violation of human rights would be left without remedy if the Commission does not take up the matter."1
AIR 2004 SC 1272 : (2004) 2 SCC 579 4 In the light of the aforesaid judgment, it can be safely gathered that the Human Rights Commission is entrusted with an important function of protecting the human rights and it does not have unlimited jurisdiction, as is being exercised in respect of property dispute in the present case, and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, as the dispute between the parties is purely a property dispute, the impugned proceedings issued by the TSHRC are hereby quashed. However, liberty is granted to the respondent No.2 to take recourse to the other remedies under the law.
The Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed. The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ___________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 23.12.2021 vs