Supreme Court of India
G. MANIKYAMMA & OTHERSversusROUDRI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & OTHERS
- Citation
- 2014 INSC 1032
- Decided
- 25 November 2014
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- JASTI CHELAMESWAR
Holding
The State Human Rights Commission does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes of title and possession of property, rendering its orders ultra vires.
Summary
The case concerned a dispute over 25 acres of land in Hyderabad that had been declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Roudri Co‑operative Housing Society claimed purchase of the land, while hut‑dwellers (encroachers) occupied part of it. The State Human Rights Commission ordered the encroachers to be shifted, and the Society sought a writ to enforce this order. The High Court upheld the Commission’s order, but the matter was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court examined whether the State Human Rights Commission, under Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, could adjudicate disputes of title and possession, and whether the land had vested in the State under Section 10 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. It held that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to decide such property disputes and that, until the statutory procedure is completed, the land remains private property and cannot be evicted by force. Consequently, the Commission’s orders and the High Court’s judgments were set aside, and the parties were directed to maintain the status quo pending determination by a competent forum.
Issues considered
- The State Human Rights Commission’s jurisdiction under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to pass orders affecting title and possession of property.
- Whether the land in question had vested in the State under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, thereby permitting eviction of occupants.
- Whether the High Court erred in enforcing the Human Rights Commission’s order.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Human Rights Commission jurisdictionproperty rightstitle and possessionUrban Land Ceiling Actevictionsurplus landSupreme CourtCivil appeal
Judgment
-.
[2014J 14 S.C.R. 853
G. MANIKYAMMA& OTHERS A
v.
ROUDRI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. &
OTHERS
(CivilAppeal Nos. 10534-10535of2014) B
NOVEMBER 25, 2014
[J. CHELAMESWAR ANDS. A. BOBDE; JJ.]
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - s. 12 -
Jurisdiction of Human Rights Commission - Scope of - C
Purchase of land by Co-operative Society from the holders
of land ~hich was declared ceiling surplus under 1976 Act-
Exemption from the Act sought by the Society -
Encroachment on the land - Decision of State to provide
houses to the encroachers on certain extent of land claimed
0
by the Society - Complaints before Human Rights
Commission by the encroachers as well as the Society -
Commission directed the State to shift the encroachers to
an alternative site - Writ petition by the Society seeking
direction to implement order of the Commission - Petition E
allowed - Writ appeal dismissed - On appeal, held: The
title and possession of the property were not determined by
the competent authority- Human Rights Commission does
not have power to adjudicate upon title and possession -
Therefore, jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission F
was wrongly in•oked- Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1976-s.10.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The function and powers of the Human
Rights Commission are enumerated under Section 12 G
of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. There is
· nothing in Section 12 which authorises the Human
Rights Commission to adjudicate upon the disputes of
title and possession of property. Thus, the Human Rights
Commission does not have any jurisdiction to deal with H
853
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014]14 S.C.R.
A the disputed question of title and possession of the
property. Both the first respondent Society as well as
the encroachers, wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of the
. Human Rights Commission instead of pursuing the
appropriate remedies available to them in law.
B [Paras 42, 43, 46 and 47][875-A; 87 4-F-G]
2. Until the procedure contemplated under Section
10 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is
followed, the land which is determined to be the excess
vacant land of any landholder does not either vest in the
C Government or the possession thereof can be taken by
the State. There is nothing on record to establish that
the larid in question was duly taken possession· by the
Government under the provisions of the Act. Until
possession is duly taken, property still remains private
D property notwithstanding the determination that such
property is "land in excess of the ceiling limit" under the
Act. The persons in possession of such property,
whatever be the nature of their possession-whether they
are encroachers or persons sucb as the first respondent
E Society- cannot be evicted by force. All this requires a
thorough examination of the respective rights of the
various parties and the authority of the State to deal with
the property in question. [Para 41][874-B-F]
3. Apart from that, there is neither any examination
F nor any determination by any competent body regarding
the rights of the first respondent Society and its members
on one hand, and the encroachers on the other hand,
for that matter, even the rights.and authority of the State
over the property in dispute. [~ara 48][877-E-F]
G
PT. Munichikkanna Reddy, vs. Revamma 2007
(5) SCR 491 : (2007) 6 SCC59- distinguished.
Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala
Krishna Rao &Anr. 1982 (3) SCR 500: AIR 1982
H SC 1081 - referred to.
•
G MANIKYAMMAv. ROUDRI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING 855
SOCIETY LTD.
Beau/ane Properties Ltd. v. Palmer (2005) 3 WLR A
554 ; JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd. v. United Kingdom
(2005) ECHR 921 - referred to.
CASE LAW REFERENCE
2007 (5) SCR 491 distinguished para 32
B
1982 (5) SCR 500 referred to para 36.
(2005) 3 WLR 554 referred to para 44
(2005) ECHR 921 referred to para 44
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. C
10534-10535 of2014.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02-07-2012 and
24-01-2013 of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh
at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 580 of 2011 and WAMP No.
59 of 2013 in Writ Appeal SR. No. 6051 of 2013. D
With
CivilAppeal No. 10536 of 2014
Adinarayana Rao, Sr.Adv., G.V.R. Choudary, K Shivraj
Chouduri, A Chandra Sekhar, P. Venkat Reddy, Sumanth E
Nookala, Mis Venkat Palwai Law Associates, D. Mahesh
Babu, S. Ashokanand Kumar, M.P. Shorawala, G.N. Reddy,
Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHELAMESWAR, J. F
1. Delay condoned. Permission to file SLP is granted.
Leave granted in the SLPs.
2. Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.26315-26316 of
2013 has been filed by nine petitioners aggrieved by the orders G
dated 02.7.2012 and 24.01.2013 of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in Writ Appeal No.580 of 2011 & WAMP No.59 of
2013 in Writ Appeal SR No.6051 of 2013, both of these filed
aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.7.2011 passed in WPMP
No.19151 of2011 inWPNo.10414of2011 and Order dated H
26.12.2012 passed in WP No.10414 of2011.
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.
A 3. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.38017 of 2013 has
been filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh aggrieved
by the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ
Appeal No.1125 of2013 arising out of Writ Petition No.10414
of 2011 and connected matters.
s· 4. Writ Petition No.10414 of2011 was filed by Mis. Roudri
Co-operative Housing Society Limited which is the first
respondent in all the appeals herein. The said writ petition
was filed seeking a writ of mandamus with various prayers
which read as follows:
c "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it
is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to issue.a writ, order or orders more particularly
one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action
of the respondents in not implementing the order dated
D 18.3.2011 of the State Human Rights Commission in
HRC No.758/2011 by shifting the hut dwellers from an
extent ofland admeasuringAc.4-10 guntas in Sy. Nos.82,
122, 123(P) of Saidabad Manda!, Hyderabad District
and not accommodating them in the alternative site
E inspite of the assurances given on 20.01.2006 by the 2"d
respondent on 25.02.2006 by the 4th respondent, the
G.O.Ms No.1451 dated 06.12.2008, G.O. Memo
No.65122/UC.IV/97-6 dated 06.12.2008 and the orders
dated 18.03.2011 in HRC No.758 of 2011 passed by
F the Hon'ble State Human Rights Commission Hyderabad
as arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural
justice and also Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the
Constitution of India and consequently direct the
respondents to evict the hut dwellers there from and pass
G such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
•
It can be noticed that the first prayer is for implementation
ofthe order dated 18.3.2011 of the State Human Rights
H Commission in HRC No.758/2011. The operative portion of
the said order is as follows:
G MANIKYAMMAv. ROUDRI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING 857
SOCIETY LTD. [CHELAMESWAR, J.]
"In the circumstances, pending final disposal of this case A
and H.R.C. No.510/2011 after hearing all the parties, the
Collector, Hyderabad District is directed to consider
shifting of the hut-dwellers of Singareni Colony from an
· extent of Ac.4-10 guntas belonging to M/s. Roudri
Cooperative Housing Society to the Munaganuru Village B
of Hayathnagar Mandal of Ranga Reddy District, where
an extent of Ac.2.00 has been identified for temporary
rehabilitation of the hut dwellers and also to see that no
new huts are erected on the extent of Ac.4.10 guntas of
land and report compliance by 8.4.2011." c
The case of all the appellants herein is that the State
Human Rights Commission has no jurisdiction to pass any
order, such as the one extracted above (order dated
18.03.2011) for the implementation of which Writ Petition
No.10414 of2011 was filed. The appellants also raised various D
other questions regarding the correctness of the orders passed
·by the High Court, the details of which will be considered later.
5. The factual background in which these matters arise
is complicated as the litigation is almost four decades old now.
E
6. The first respondent Society entered into an
agreement of sale dated 05.4.1981 for purchase of 25 acres
of land in Survey Nos.82, 122 & 123 Part situated at Saidabad
village and Mandal, Hyderabad District with six persons.
According to the Society, three of them were the owners and F
the other three were the protected tenants on the land in
dispute. It is the case of all the parties herein that the land was
urban vacant land falling within the purview of the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as
"the Act").
G
7. Having entered into such an agreement (referred to
above) the first respondent Society made an application to
the Government of Andhra Pradesh praying that the property
in question be exempted from the purview of the operation of
the Act in exercise of the authority of the State conferred under H
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.
A Section 20(1 )(a) of the Act. The'respondent Society claims
that the vendors have delivered physical possession of the
land on 24.10.1985. The respondent Society also claims that
out of the total consideration of Rs.7,50,000/-, it had paid an
amount of Rs.3,51 ~500/- on different dates. We are· not
B concerned with the details of such payments.
8. Since_ the Government ofAndhra Pradesh did not grant
exemption as sought for by the Society, another representation
was made on dated 15. 7 .1988 to which the Government vide
its letter dated 16.8.1988 replied that the request of the Society
C would be considered only after determination of the excess
land held by the vendors of the land (by the Special Officer and
Competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad) ..
9. On 21. 9 .1992, the Competent Authority r,mder the Act
determined the extent of surplus land held by the vendors and
0 simultaneously sent a letter to the Commissioner of Land
Revenue recommending the permission for alienation of the
land in favour of the respondent Society by the original owners
pursuant to the agreement dated 05.4.1981 mentioned earlier.
E 10. Pursuant to the said letter, the Commissioner of Land
Revenue recommended by his letter dated 03.4.1993 to the
$tate Government that such permission for alienation be
granted. Such a letter was written in the light of the G.O.M.
No.136 of 28.1.1981 which permitted the registered Co-
F operative Housing Societies to purchase the land from the
persons whose lands are declared as surplus lands.·
11. According to the pleadings of the first respondent
. Society, for a decade thereafter, no significant development
took place with respect to the disputed land. According to the·
G Society, sometime in the month of June 2002, a part of the
land came to be occupied by large number of homeless
people. Strangely, the Society approached the revenue
authorities of the State Government praying that the
encroachers be evicted and thereafter approached the High
H Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.10888 of 2002
•
GJi~ANIKYAMMAv. ROUDRI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING 859
SOCIETY LTD. [CHELAMESWAR, J.]
seey_mg a writ of mandanius against the revenue authorities A
to taRe appropriate· action to protect the land of the Society
unti{~n appropriate decision is taken by the State Government
on the recommendation made by the Commissioner of Land
Refqrms and Urban Land Ceilings in his letter dated
03.~:f003. B
12. It appears from the pleadings in the writ petition that
in ttie said writ petition, an interim order dated 09.6.2002 was
passed by the High Court directing the revenue authorities to
evi¢t.~he encroachers by removing the huts erected in the land
bel(ioging to the Society. C
··-r~'On 09.6.2002, in WPMP No.13379 of 2002 in WP
;:/No.10888 of 2002 this Hon'ble Court granted interim
orders, directing the Respondents 2 to 5 to evict the
encroachers by removing the huts erected in the land
belonging to the petitioner Society in Sy. Nos.82, 122 D
and 123 Part in Saidabad Manda, Hyderabad and direct
the Respondents 6 to 9 herein to aid the Respondents 2
to 5 in evicting the encroachers."
Naturally, this led to further extra-ordinary litigation. Three E
writ petitions by different bodies claiming to be representing
the hut dl(llellers/encroachers came to be filed seeking various
reliefs from the High Court which were dismissed.
Subsequently, another set of writ petitions came to be filed at
the behest of the hut dwellers and it appears that various interim F
orders were passed by the High Court, the details pf which
may not be necessary for the purpose of this case.
13. In the meanwhile, the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation)Act, 1976 came to be repealep by the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. Under Section 2 G
of the 1999Act, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act,
1976 was repealed. However, under Section 1, the 1999 Act
was made applicable initially only to the State of Haryana and
Punjab and all the Union Territories and it was declared that it
would apply to other States with effect from such date when H
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.
A the Legislative Assembly of the Stafe by resolution adopt the
Repealing Act.
"1. (1) This Act may be called the Urban Land (Ceiling
and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.
(2) It applies in the first instance to the whole of the
8
States of Haryana and Punjab and to all the Union
territories; and it shall apply to such other State which
adopts this Act by resolution passed in that behalf under
clause (2) of article 252 of the Constitution.
c (3) It shall be deemed to have come i1.1to force in
the States of Haryana and Punjab and in all the Union
territories on the 11th day of January, 1999 and in any
other State which adopts this Act under clause (2) of
article 252 of the Constitution on the date of such
0 adoption; and the reference to repeal of the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 shall, in relation to
any State or Union territory, mean the date on which this
Act comes into force in such State or Union territory."
14. The erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh adopted the
E RepealActw.e.f. from 27.03.2008.
15. The erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh issued GOM
No.455 dated 29.7.2002 subject to various conditions.
stipulated therein, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:
"4.The Government while keeping in view the
F observations of High Court and after careful
con.sideration of the issue of occupation of excess and
by third parties (i.e., other than the declarants/excess land
holders or their successors) and taking into account all
ground realities and the practical aspects of the problem
G and difficulties encountered in the strict enforcement of
the law and bearing in mind the fact that the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is an expropriatory
law, have, as a matter of policy, decided to allot the excess
lands to such respective third parties in occupation U/s.
H '23 of the Act."
••
1.
G MANIKYAMMAv. ROUDRI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING 861
SOCIETY LTD. [CHELAMESWAR, J.]
16. In the light of the GOM No.455, the first respondent A
Society and its members made representations to the State
Government. In response to the said representations, the
Government of Andhra Pradesh issued another GOM No.457
dated 24.3.2003, the relevant portion of which reads as under:
"4. The Roudri Co.Operative House Building Society Ltd., B
Hyderabad in the representation 2"d read above, stated
that it purchased Acres 25.00 of excess land in S.Nos.82,
122and123 (part), Saidabad village, Hyderabad District
from the surplus land holders S/Sri Mohd. Mahaboob
Mohiuddin, Mohd. Giasuddin and Safiuddin and 3 C
protected tenants Sri Pratap Singh, J.P. Singh and T.K.
Singh on 05.4.1981 and the request of the surplus land
holder and the society as well for granting exemption of
the said land has not yet been finalized and still pending
for one or the other reason. No registered document of D
sale could therefore be executed by the surplus land
holder to the society and in turn by the society to its
members. In the meantime, the society in accordance
with the wishes of members has allotted plots to individual
members based on which they are in possession. In E
this background, the society in has expressed no
objection for allotting the plots of land to the members
directly by Government in terms of the orders issued in
the GO. 1st read above, by relaxing orders issued therein
to the extent necessary. F
5. The Government, therefore, in relaxation of the orders ·
issued in para 4 (e) to (h) of the G.O. 1st read above,
hereby direct that:-
a) The society shall furnish all necessary records of G
allotment of plots made by it to its members, to the
Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land
Ceilings, Hyderabad which shall include the (i)
Name of member with father/husband's name (ii)
Full address (iii) Membership No. & Date of H
862. . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.
A enrolment (iv) Amount paid to Society (v) S.No.
(village) Plot No. allotted (vi) Extent of the allotted
plot in sq. mtrs. (vii) Date of allotment (viii) Date of
putting the member in possession of plot and such
other information as may be needed by him. It shall
B also make available all required records for his
· verification and processing the proposals to
Government. '
b) The plot of land held by the member with or without
structures, based on the allotment order/letter of
c allotment/Minutes of the Society, be considered for
allotment to such member, on filing individual
applications in terms of the orders issued in the GO.
1'' read above.
c) For determining the time period of possession and
D amount payable for all members who are original
allottees and continue to enjoy even now and also
. their successors in case of death of any member,
the date of allotment/putting the memoer in
possession of land shall be taking into
E consideration. For those who have got the.
membership/plots transferred from the original
allottee or purchasers the dates of such transfer or
·purchase (to be certified by the society) shall be
taken into consideration to determine the time
F period of possession and amount payable.
d) Allotment shall be subject to there being no litigations
.. pending in respect of the land which shall be through·
verified and reported by the Special Officer &
CompetentAuthority, Hyderabad. ·
G
17. It can be seen from the above extract that the
Government only called for the data specified in para 6 ofthe
above GOM No.457 with a view to consider the allotment of
plots in favour of individual members of the Society out of the
H ·land agreed to be purchased by the first respondent Society
G. MANIKY.AMMAv. ROUDRI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING 863
SOCIETY LTD. [CHELAMESWAR, J.]
from the holders of the excess land. It is not known from the A
record whether any final allotment in favour of individual
members of the Society ever came to be made.
18. It appears that a large number of huts of the
encroachers of the land in question were destroyed due to fire
accident which occurred on 09.2.2005. Therefore, the State B
of Andhra Pradesh decided to provide permanent houses
under a Scheme known as "the VAMBAY Housing Scheme"
in an extent of 7 acres out of 25 acres of the land claimed by
the first respondent Society. The said fact is borne out of the
letter of the Collector, Hyderabad dated 20.01.2006, the C
relevant portion of which reads as follows:
"This refers to the fire accident which occurred on
09.2.2005 in which a large number of hut dwellers have
lost everything when their houses got gutted in fire. As
you aware that the Government has decided to construct
0
permanent housing under VAMBAY Housing Scheme
and accordingly a portion of the land where hut dwellers
are staying is being utilized for construction ofVAMBAY
housing. Accordingly, the construction .of VAMBAY
Scheme commenced in extent of Ac.7.00 Gts. from the E
portion of the land claimed by Co-operative Housing
Society as owners to an extent of Ac.25.00 gts on the
consent of said Society not claiming the land. The '
Collector agreed to keep remaining and forthe purpose
of the Society subject to outcome of U.L.C. while evicting F
tile existing illegal encroached hut dwellers in Sy. No.82,
122 and 123/part. So also the beneficiaries already
identified will be shifted to VAMBAY housing Scheme
immediately after completion of the project.
You are therefore requested to pursue the matter with G
Roudhri Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and assure
them that their interest is protected as per the Law.
Meaning protect the land in question from the illegal
encroachers and take steps to finalise the list
H
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.
A beneficiaries ofVAMBAY housing Programme from the
victims of the fire accident."
19. Pursuant to the said letter, the Revenue Divisional
Officer Hyderabad vide letter dated 25.02.2006 called upon
the first respondent Society to agree for the proposal. In
B response to the said letter, the first respondent Society once
again submitted a letter seeking "regularization of the area in
occupation of the members in terms of GOM Nos.455
and 457". The first respondent Society submitted 219
applications of individual members along with ODs valued at
C Rs.43,50,222/-.
20. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued GOM
No.1451 dated 06.12.2008 by which an extent of 9 acres 14
guntas in Sy. No.82, 122 and 123 Part of Saidabad Village
and Mandal, Hyderabad was allotted in favour of the first
D respondent Society. In the said GOM, the Government took
note of the history of litigation between the Society and the
State and also recorded that as per the report of the Special
Officer arid CompetentAuthority of the Land Ceiling Hyderabad
that out of the 25 acres of land claimed by the first respondent
E Society, various parcels of land were either under
encroachment or occupied by hut dwellers 1•
21. It is' interesting to note the contents of paras 7 and 8
of the said GO which reads as follows:
F· "7. Government after careful examination of the matter
and as the Collector has given consent to evict the
encroachments, hereby decided to allot the surplus
land to an extent of Ac.9.14 gts., (Ac.5.04 gts., covered
14. Whereas, the Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land
G Ceiling, Hyderabad reported that out of to!<ll extent of Ac.25.00 gts.,
Ac.6.20 gts., was encroached by Mis. Bhanu Construction Housing
Society, Ac.4.10 gts., was encroached by illegal huts. Ac1 .23 gts., covered
by R.C.C. Road, Ac.0.20 gts., covered\ by Mosque,Ac.1.00 gts .. covered
by Graveyards, Ac. 6.03 gts., was taken over for construction of houses
under VAMBAY Housing Scheme and Ac.5.04 gts., of vacantland covered
H by compound wall.
G. MANIKYAMMA v. ROUDRI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING 865
SOCIETY LTD. [CHELAMESWAR, J.]
with compound wall and Ac. 4.10 gts., covered by A.
encroachers) in favour of M/s. Roudri Co-operative
Housing Society Limited, Saidabad in terms of the
orders issued in the G.O. first read above, as a Special
.Case to facilitate the Society to take up constructions of
residential apartments and to allot the flats to the B
individual members of the Society.
8. Accordingly, the Government hereby allot the excess
land taken possession by the State government
under the provisions of the Principal Act, 1976 to an
extent ofAc.9.14 gts., in Sy. No.82, 122, 123/P of C
Saidabad Village and Manda!, Hyderabad District in
favour of M/s. Roudri Co-operative Housing Society
Limited, Saidabad who are reported to be in possession
of the excess land. Since the members of the Society
have also paid the requisite amounts prescribed in D
G.O.Ms. No.455, dated 29.07.2002, as a Special Case,
to facilitate the Society to take up construction of
residential apartments and to allot the flats to the
individual members of the Society, the land is allotted to
. Society instead of individual members in view of the E
reasons mentioned in para (3) and (4)."
22. Two factors are required to be taken notice of. We
do not find anything on record. At any rate nothing is broughtto
our notice by the State, to establish that the possession of the
land in question was actually taken by the State in accordance F
with the provisions of the Act during its subsistence. Secondly,
by the date of abovementioned GO, the Act stood repealed in
the erstw~ile State of Andhra Pradesh.
23. It appears from the averments made in the writ petition. G
that the first respondent Society was continuously pursuing the
authorities of the State of Andhra Pradesh to evict the
encroachers and finally succeeded to some extent. The
averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ
Petition No. 10414 of 2011 read as follows:-
H
866 .. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20141'1'4 S.C.R.
A "27. I submit that on 14.2.2011, the Respondents 2 to 5
with the aid of Respondents 6 to 9 evicfe.d the hut
dwellers, occupied in portion of land to an eX't$!'.it of Ac.4-
10 guntas in Sy. No. 82, 122 and 123 Part of$aidabad
· village Manda! and delivered the vacant,physical
B possession of the land to the Petitioner Society under a
Panchanama. A copy of the Panchanama along with
sketch is marked asAnnexure P-36. · ·
28. I submit that to the utter surprise of th~.Petitioner
Society, the hut dwellers who vacated the $.aid land in
C the morning returned back again on the same day evening
and once again occupied the land belonging to the
Petitioner Society by threatening the Se-c:ority and
Watchman provided by the Petitioner Society; with dire
consequences and illegally tress passed into the land
D and committed various offences."
24. In the background of the above-mentioned facts; it
appears that the Communist Party of India (Marxist) made
complaint to the State Human Rights Commission, Andhra
Pradesh on 17.2.2011 pleading the case of hut dwellers that
E they were being high handedly evicted by the revenue and
police authorities of the State. The Human Rights Commission
passed an order, the operative portion of which reads as
follows:-
"In the circumstances, the Collector, Hyderabad District
F
is directed to take steps for immediate restoration of the
water and electricity supply to the hut-dwellers of
Singareni Colony, whose huts have been demolished,
and they be not evicted from the said _place till
consideration as to sanction of the pucca houses to the
G
said people."
25. Within a month thereafter, some of the members of
the first respondent society filed a complaint before the State
Human Rights Commission on 18.3.2011 seeking a direction
H to the various revenue and police authorities of the State to
G MANIKYAMMA v. ROUDRI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING 867
SOCIETY LTD. [CHELAMESWAR, J.]
evict the hut-dwellers from the land admeasuring 4 acres 10 A
guntas out of the 9 acres 14 guntas allotted to the petitioners
under GoMS no. 1451 referred to supra.
26. It is on the said complaint, the interim order dated
18.3.2011 came to be passed by the State Human Rights
Commission for the implementation of which the first B
respondent Society approached the High Court by way of Writ
Petition No. 10414 of 2011.
27. Writ Petition No. 10414 of 2011 and Writ Petition
No. 4898 of 2012 came to be disposed of by a common
judgment dated 26.12.2012. The Writ Petition No. 4898 of C
2012 was filed by an association of the encroachers seeking
a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the
State and its authorities in seeking to evict the hut dwellers
from the land in question without providing an alternative
accommodation to them, to be arbitrary and violative ofArticles D ·
14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
28. By the above-mentioned common judgment, the High
Court allowed Writ Petition No. 10414 of 2011 and disposed
of Writ Petition No. 4898 of 2012. The operative portion of E
the judgment reads as follows:-
"17. Therefore, I allowW.P. No. 10414 of 2011 and
direct the respondents 1 to 9 therein to take all
necessary steps for securing eviction of the 367
families, who have occupied the Singareni F
Colony land latest by 20.01.2013. Similarly, the
Respondents 1 to 9 will not raise any objection
for the 367 families only from raising temp6rary
constructions in the identified 3 acres of land at
Munaganoor Village to enable them to live at G
the new site of rehabilitation. The Respondents
1 to 5 would also take all necessary steps to
complete the permanent housing scheme
contemplated by them in ground plus two upper
floors, so that the identified rehabilitated families H
868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.
A can be shifted on to the permanent
accommodation. As and when permanent
_accommodation is made available, each of the
rehabilitated family member shall deliver vacant
pe?ceful possession of the site occupied by him
B in the temporary rehabilitation -camp to the
Tahsildar-cum-Mandal Revenue Officer,
Saidabad and obtain acknowledgement in token
of handing over the vacant possession. The
. occupants will be redelivering the possession
c certificate which the Mandal Revenue Officer will
be issuing to the identified rehabilitated families
·at the time of their moving on to the permanent
housing scheme contemplated by the State.
18. It is open to the petitioner Society to secure
D necessary permission for construction of a
pucca nonporous compound wall around their
site from the competent Municipal Corporation
. authority and then proceed by way of construction
of a compound wall to protect their property.
E 19. In view of the above order, W.P. No. 4898 of
2012 is disposed of g,ranting time to the
Petitioner Sangam for rehabilitating themselves
at the new temporary rehabilitation center
identified at Munaganoor Village on or before
F 20.01.2013.
29. It appears that during the pendency of Writ Petition
No. 10414 of 2011, a Miscellaneous Petition No. 19151 of
2011 came to be filed by five petitioners praying that they may
be impleaded as party respondents in the writ petition. The
G said miscellaneous petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by
the same, the unsuccessful petitioners filed Writ Appeal No.
580 of 2011.
30.Aggrieved by the decision in Writ Petition No. 10414
H of 2011, the State of Andhra Pradesh carried the matter in
G MANIKYAMMAv. ROUDRI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING 869
SOCIETY LTD. [CHELAMESWAR, J.]
appeal by way of Writ Petition No. 1121of2013 which was A
dismissed by a judgment dated 20.8.2013 whereas Writ
Appeal No. 580 of 2011 was also rejected by an order dated
2.7.2012. Aggrieved by the dismissal ofWritAppeal No. 1121
of2013, the State ofAndhra Pradesh preferred SLP No. 38017
of 2013 and the other two SLPs are filed by the unsuccessful B
appellants in Writ Appeal No. 580 of 2011 and the High Court
is right in law to give the various directions such as the one
given.
31. The core question which arises in these three
appeals is whether the State Human Rights Commission has C
any jurisdiction to pass the order such as the one passed by it
seeking the implementation of which the first respondent
Society filed Writ Petition No. 10414 of 2011.
32. All the appellants submitted that the State Human
Rights Commission went beyond its jurisdiction in issuing the D
directions in question. On the other hand, the learned counsel
for the first respondent Society argued that in view of the
judgment of this Court in P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v.
Revamma (2007) 6 SCC 59 holding that the right to property
is one of the human rights, the State Human Rights E
Commission's directions to protect the property rights of the
first respondent Society's members are well within its
jurisdiction.
33. The first respondent Society's right, if any, to the 9 F
acres 14 guntas of land arises out of GOM No. 1451 dated
16.12.2008 by which the Government purported to allot the
land in favour of the first respondent Society. The right, title
and interest of the first respondent Society in the property in
question prior to 16.8.2;008 appears (to use a cautious
expression) doubtful in Yiew of the Urban Land (Ceiling and G
Regulation)Act, 1976 and require a thorough examination. The
first respondent Society asserts to be in possession of the
said property on and from 24.10.1985 pursuant to the delivery
of possession by their vendors - original owners who were H
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R.
A subsequently declared to be the holders of surplus land under
the Urban Land CeilingsAct.
34. Assuming for the sake of argument that the first
respondent Society obtained such a possession, they seem
to have lost such possession even according to their own
B admission at least from the month of June, 2002. On the other
hand, the State of Andhra Pradesh issued GOM No. 1451
specifically asserting that the land in question was 'excess
.land' of which possession was taken.by the State under the
provisions cif the Act. On the face of such conflicting claims
C regarding the physical possession of the property in dispute,
and the unascertained nature of the legal rights of the first
respondent Society to the property, whether the State Human
Rights Commission would have jurisdiction to pass the orders
such as the orders passed by it, is the issue.
D 35. The authority of the State to evict encroachers for the
benefit of the members of the first respondent Society (whose
right to possession of the property is not clearly established)
by the use of.police force is wholly inconsistent with the rule of
law. The mode of eviction of unauthorised occupants depends
E on the ownership of the property. In a country governed by the
rule of law, even squatters can be evicted only in accordance
with some procedure established by law. In the absence of
any special statute dealing with the eviction of such squatters,
persons seeki'ig to evict squatters, must obtain a decree for
F eviction from a competent court and execute such a decree.
Such a decree can be granted only if the competent court
comes to the conclusion that the person seeking such a decree
has a superior legal right to the possession of the property in
dispute than the right of the squatter.
G
36. Statutes of various states in this country provide for
eviction of squatters on land belonging to the State and its
instrumentalities by following a summary procedure prescribed
therein. Such procedure obviates the need for obtaining a
decree for eviction from a competent court. In the context of
H
G MANIKYAMMA v. ROUDRI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING 871
SOCIETY LTD. [CHELAMESWAR, J.]
the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, one such enactment is A
the AP Land Encroachment Act. However, in Government
of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummata Krishna Rao & Anr., AIR
1982 SC 1081, this Court held with reference to the lands of
the State or its instrumentalities which are in possession of
squatters for lon.g time, such summary procedure could not be B
resorted to.
37. Therefore, in our opinion, the State of Andhra Pradesh
could have resorted to the summary procedure of eviction of
the encroachers only if the land in dispute vests in the State
and the possession of the squatters is of recent origin. There C
is nothing on record to establish that the land in question vests
in the State of Andhra Pradesh. At any rate, nothing is brought
to our notice to establish that the land in question vests in the
State of Andhra Pradesh.
38. Even if the land in dispute is declared surplus land D
under the provisions of the Act, the same can be taken
possession of by the State only by following the procedure
established by law which is indicated tinder Section 1Oof the
Act.
E
"10. Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling
limit.-
( 1) As soon as may be after the service of the statement
under section 9 on the person concerned, the competent
authority shall cause a notification giving the particulars F
of the vacant land held by such person in excess of the
ceiling limit and stating that~
(i) such vacant land is to be acquired by the concerned
State Government; and
(ii) the claims of ~II person interested in such vacant G
land may be made by them personally or by their
agents giving particulars of the nature of their interests
in such land, to be published forthe information of the
general public in the Official Gazette of the State
H
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.
A . concerned and in such other manner as may be
prescribed. ·
(2) After considering the claims of the persons interested
in the vacant land, made to the competent authority in
pursuance of the notification published under sub section
B ..
(1), the competent authority shall determine the nature
and extent of such claims and pass such orders as it
deems fit.
(3) At any time after the publication of the notification
under sub section (1) the compktent authority may, by
c notification published in the Official Gazette of the State
concerned, declare that the excess vacant land referred
to in the notification published under sub section (1) shall,
with effect from such date·as may be specified in the
declaration, be deemed to have been acquired by the
D State Government and upon the publication of such
declaration, such land shall be deemed to have vested
absolutely in the State Government free from all
encumbrances with effect from the date so specified.
(4) During the period commencing on the date of
E
publication of the notification under sub section (1) and
ending with the date specified in the declaration made
under sub section (3)-
(i) no person shall transfer by way of sale, mortgage,. gift,
F lease or otherwise any excess vacant land (including any
part thereof) specified in the notification aforesaid and .
any such transfer made in contravention of this provision
shall be deemed to be null and void; and
(ii) no person shall alter orcause to be altered the use of
G such excess vacant land.
(5) Where any vacant land is vested in the State
Government under sub section (3), the competent
authority may, by notice in writing, order any person who
may be in possession of it to surrender or deliver
H
G MANIKYAMMA v. ROUDRI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING 873
SOCIETY LTD. [CHELAMESWAR, J.]
possession thereof to the State Government or to any A
person duly authorised by the State Government in this
behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice.
(6) If any person refuses or fails to comply with an order
made under sub section (5), the competent authority may
take possession of the vacant land or cause it to be given B
to the concerned State Government or to any person duly
authorised by such State Government in this behalf and
may for that purpose use such force as may be
necessary."
39. Under the scheme of the Act, persons holding 'vacant C
land ·in excess of the ceiling limit specified by the Act are
required to file a statement under Section 6 thereof. Such a
statement is required to be examined by the competent
authority in accordance with the procedure laid down under
Sections B and 9 and "determine the vacant land held by the· 0
person .... in excess of the. ceiling limit". Only upon such
determination the possession of such excess land can be taken
by the State following the procedure under Section 10. It can
be seen from Section 10, the competent authority is required
to give a notification giving the particulars of the excess vacant E
land which is proposed 'to be acquired by the . . . State
government' and invite objections from any person interested
in the said land for the acquisition of such land. If any such
claims are received by the State Government {in response to
the notification under Section 10(1 )}, the tenability of such F
claims is required to be determined by the competent authority.
Under sub-Section (3), the State Government is authorised to
make a declaration by a gazette notification that any excess
vacant land referred to in the notification published under sub-
section (1) shall be deemed to have been acquired by the G
State Government w.e.f. the date specified therein. Upon such
a declaration, such land shall be deemed to have vested
absolutely in the State Government. After such notification
under Section 10(3), the competent authority may call upon
H
874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.
A any person who is in actual possession of such property to
deliver possession thereof to the State Government (sub-
section (5)). If any such person in possession of the property
refuses to comply with an order under sub-Section (5), the
competent authority shall take possession of the vacant land,
B if necessary, by use of such force as may be necessary for
taking possession (sub-Section (6))
40. Until the procedure contemplated under Section 1O
is followed, the land which is determined to be the excess
vacant land. of any landholder does not either vest in the
C Government or the possession thereof can be taken by the
State.
41. There is nothing on record before us to establish that
the land in question was duly taken possession by the
Government under the provisions of the Act. Until possession
D is duly taken as explained above, property still remains private
property notwithstanding the dete.rmination that such property
is "land in excess of the ceiling limit" undertheAct. The persons
in possession of such property, whatever be the nature of their
possession-whether they are encroachers or persons such as
E the first respondent Society- cannot be evicted by force. All
this requires a thorough examination of the respective rights
of the various parties and the authority of the State to deal with
the property in question.
42. The Human Rights Commission, in our view, would
F not be competent forum for the examination of the above-
mentioned issues. Both the first respondent Society as well
as the encroachers, in our view, wrongly invoked the jurisdiction .
of the Human Rights Commission instead of pursuing ·the
appropriate remedies available to them in Jaw, and the Human
G Rights Commission was too willing to exercise authority without
any jurisdiction. We are also of the opinion that the High Court
resorted to more of a mediation activity than the determination
of the legal issues inyolved in the case.
H
G MANIKYAMMAv. ROUDRI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING 875
SOCIETY LTD. [CHELAMESWAR, J.]
43. In our opinion, the Human Rights Commission does A
not have any jurisdiction to deal with the disputed questions of
title and possession of the property.
44. We make it clear that in the case of P. T.
Munichikanna Reddy v. Revamma (supra), this Court
examined the impact of a claim of adverse possession over B
rented property in the context of the claim of a person who has
a valid title in his favour. This Court upon examination of
Beaulane Properties Ltd. Vs. Palmer, (2005) 3 WLR 554
and JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd. Vs. United Kingdom, (2005) ECHR
921 opined; C
"43. Human rights have been historically considered in
the realm of individual rights such as, right to health, right
to livelihood, right to shelter and employment etc. but now
human rights are gaining a multifaceted dimension.
Right to property is also considered very much a part of
0
the new dimension. Therefore, even claim of adverse
possession has to be read in that context. The activist
approach of the English Courts is quite visible from the
judgment of Beau/ane Properties Ltd. v. Palmer and JA
Pye (Oxford) Ltd. v. United Kingdom. The Court herein E
tried to read the human rights position in the context of
adverse possession. But what is commendable is that
the dimensions of human rights have widened so much
that now property dispute issues are also being raised
within the contours of human rights. F
45. P. T. Munichikkanna Reddy's case (supra) arose
out of a suit filed under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (for short "the CPC") where both the plaintiff and
defendant asserted their title to the property in dispute. The G
plaintiff in the alternative claimed that he had preferred the title.
by adverse possession. It was a case where the original owner
of the property sold the same piece of land to both the parties
to the suit. The sale in favour of the defendant is anterior to the
sale in favour of the plaintiff. It was in the background of the H
876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [2014] 14 S.C.R.
A above-mentioned facts, this Court examined the question. P. T.
Munichikkanna Reddy's case (supra) is not an authority for
the proposition that the Human Rights Commission either
National or State constituted under the Protection of Human
Rights Act, 1993 are competent to adjudicate upon the disputed
B questions of title and possession.
46. The functions and powers of the Commission are
enumerated under Section 12 of the Protection of Human
RightsAct, 1993, which reads as follows:-
12. Functions of the Commission.-
c
The Commission shall peform all or any of the following
functions, namely:- ·
(a) inquire, suo motu or on a petition presented to it by a
victim or any person on his behalf, into complaint ofc
D (i) violation of human rights or abatement thereof; or
(ii) negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a
public servant;
(b) intervene in any proce~ding involving any allegation
E of violation of-human rights pending before a court with
the approval of such court;·
(c) visit, under intimation to the State Government, any
jail or any other in::.titution under the control of the state
Government where persons are detained or lodged for
F purposes of treatment, reformation or protection to study
the living conditions of the inmates and make
recommendations thereon.
(d) review the safeguards provided by or under the
Constitution or any law for the time being in force for the
G protection of human rights and recommend measures ·
for their effective implementation;
(e) review the factors, including acts of terrorism, that
inhibit the enjoyment of hum;:in rights and recommend
appropriate remedial measures;
H
G MANIKYAMMA v. ROUDRI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING 87.7
SOCIETY LTD. [CHELAMESWAR, J.]
· (f) study treaties and other international instruments on A
human rights and make recommendations for their
effective implementation; ··
(g) undertake and promote research in the filed of human
rights;
B
(h) spread human rights literacy among various sections
of society and promote awareness of the safeguards
available for the protection of these rights, through
publications, the media, seminars and other available
means;
c
(i) encourage the efforts of non-governmental
organisations and institutions working in the field of
human rights
G) such other functions as it may consider necessary for
the promotion of human rights. D
47. It can be seen from the language, there is nothing in
Section 12 which authorises the Human Rights Commission
to adjudicate upon the disputes of title and possession of
property.
48. Apart from that, there is neither any examination nor E
· any determination by any competent body of the rights of the
first respondent Society and its members on one hand, and
the encroachers on the other hand, for that matter, even the
rights and authority of the State over the property in dispute.
F
49. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to set
aside the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Human Rights
Commission dated 17.2.2011 and 18.3.2011 and the judgment
of the learned Single Judge dated 26.12.2012 in Writ Petition
No. 10414 of2011 and also the judgments in WritAppeal No. G
580 of 2011dated2.7.2012 and the judgment in WritAppeal
No. 1125 of 2013 leaving it open to the parties to seek their
remedies before the appropriate fora, if they are so advised.
We also direct all the parties including the authorities of the
State to maintain status quo obtaining as on today with respect H
878 · SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R.
A to the possession of the various parties until the competent
court/forum determines the rights cif the first respondent Society
and also the encroachers with respect to the land in question
admeasuring 4 acres 10 guntas.
50.Appeals stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Human Rights Commission jurisdiction"Sign in to search