The main legal point established in the judgment is that in the absence of specific provision for condonation of delay, the statutory commission has no inherent power to condone the delay in filing the complaint.

JUDGMENT :

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.

(Prayer: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in S.H.R.C.No.5733 of 2019/HC2 vide order dated 03.12.2019 and quash the same and consequently direct the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu to enquire the petitioner's complaint dated 06.06.2019 and to dispose of the same strictly in adherence to the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.)

1. The petitioner claims to be an assignee of land in Survey No. 994/1A, T.S.No.116, Melamadurai Village, Arapalayam Main Road, Madurai West Taluk admeasuring to an extent of one cent and the same was given to her through the Scheme of giving free house site pattas as she happened to be a landless poor and the petitioner claims to be in occupation for several decades so also 42 persons. The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that on 19.12.2016, at about 5.00 a.m., the second respondent accompanied with certain police officials, started demolishing the superstructures, and the same is in violation of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the United Nation Covenants of Human Rights.

2. The petitioner subsequently filed W.P.(MD).No.3461 of 2017 so also along with some other persons similarly placed, who had also filed W.P.(MD).Nos.781 and 333 of 2017, praying for the writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings, of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, dated 03.08.2015 and the consequential order dated 15.12.2016 passed by the District Revenue Officer, Madurai and directing them to restore the possession of the petitioner bearing Plot No.7 situated at Old Survey No.994/1A, Ward No.5, Block No.33, T.S.No.116, Arapalayam Main Road, Melamadurai, Madurai. The learned single Judge had passed a common order dated 01.04.2019, by directing the jurisdictional Tahsildar to carry out the work of survey, measurement and demarcation of the assigned sites within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in respect of the assignee of the land in Plot No.37, after taking note of the fact that she is no more, directed the concerned jurisdictional Tahsildar to assign the said land in favour of any other eligible person and allowed the writ petitions accordingly.

3. Mr.R.Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that though the second respondent had committed illegal act of barging, trespassing into the land and demolishing the superstructure on 19.12.2016, the fact remains that the petitioner is an illiterate person, having poor economic background and hailing from lowest strata of the Society, and though the complaint came to be lodged belatedly on 06.06.2019, the complaint given before the first respondent concerned cannot be said to be barred by limitation, on the ground that it is a continuous cause of action, and the first respondent without taking note of the factual aspect and legal position, has erroneously rejected the plaint, on the ground of limitation and prays for interference.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 08.01.2020, made in Civil Appeal Nos.60 and 61 of 2020 (Vidya Devi vs. Himachal Pradesh and others).

5. Mr.Arulvadivel @ Sekar, learned Standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent and would submit that even as per the contents of the complaint of the petitioner dated 06.06.2019, the alleged illegal /unauthorised act on the part of the second respondent took place on 19.12.2016 and the complaint came to be lodged belatedly, only on 06.06.2019 and the State Human Rights Commission, in the light of the period of limitation provided under Section 36 (2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, has rightly rejected the complaint on the g