Point of Law: It is trite law that when evidence is required to be produced to adjudicate rights of the rival contentions, moreso in the nature of a civil dispute, the same cannot be entertained by the Commission, like any other complaint, not dealing with a civil dispute.

JUDGMENT :

S. Manikumar, J.

Instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order quashing Exhibits P2 and P3.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order directing respondents 3 and 4 to restore the property of the petitioner covered by Exhibit P1 to its original position or in the alternative permit Petitioner to do so and realize its expenses from respondents 1, 3 and 4.”

2. Short facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as hereunder:-

Instant writ petition is filed challenging Ext. P2 order of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, represented by its Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram, the 2nd respondent, directing to cut open a way through the petitioner's property, based on a complaint on Mr. K. K. Mani, Kochuparambil House, Manakkayam, Chittar P.O., Pathanamthitta, the 6th respondent, and Ext. P3 order of the Tahsildar, Konni, Pathanamthitta, the 3rd respondent, directing the Village Officer, Chittar, Pathanamthitta, the 4th respondent, to take consequential action based on Ext. P2 order.

According to the petitioner, she is a widow who owns 91.42 cents of property in Chittar Village covered by Ext. P1 land tax receipt. Petitioner has contended that the 6th respondent filed a complaint before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, alleging that petitioner had closed a way available to him through her property.

Petitioner has further contended that the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, passed Ext. P2 order, directing to open a way through her property covered by Ext. P1, without hearing her.

Based on Ext. P2 order of the Commission, the Tahasildar, Konni, has passed Ext. P3 communication. Inter alia, the petitioner has contended that the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, has no jurisdiction to enter into any complaint relating to any civil dispute. Reliance has been made to Regulation 17(f) of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 2001.

3. The 6th respondent, has filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition. Relevant paragraphs of the counter affidavit reads thus:-

“4. This respondent who is aged 70 years was residing with his wife who is aged 65 years in his property since 2006. The copy of the sale deed between the predecessor of the property and the 6th respondent numbered as 1965/06 dated 29/11/2006, along with the English translation is produced herewith and marked herewith as Exhibit R6(1).

5. It is most humbly submitted that, as per the Ext. R6(1) and as per the schedule and boundaries of the property clearly defines a pathway on the northern side of the property. This respondent and his family members including the predecessors of the property are using the said pathway on the northern side of the property for ingress and egress.

6. This respondent from 2006 onwards, as well as his predecessors was using this pathway which was blocked by the petitioner and one Rejila. The property of the petitioner is situated is on the western side of the property of this respondent. The action of the petitioner due to the blockage of the pathway by the petitioner as well as the said Rejila had created and "Land Lock" of the property in Exhibit R6 (1). This respondent had preferred a petition before the 2nd respondent due to the same. This respondent also challenged the obstruction of the pathway by Rejila in O.S. No. 215/2014 before the Hon'ble Munsiff's Court, Ranni, Pathanamthitta.

7. It is most respectfully submitted that, pursuant to this respondent filed the complaint before the Human Rights Commission and the 2nd respondent had pronounced the Order which is marked as Exhibit P2. Later, based on Ext. P2, the 3rd respondent directed the 4th respondent to open the pathway with help of police which is marked as Exhibit P3. Exhibits P2 & P3 are under challenge.

8. It is most respectfully submitted that, prior to Exhibit P2 and P3, the only pathway to the property to this respondent was blocked and prevent