The National Commission for Scheduled Castes has the constitutional duty to investigate and monitor matters relating to the safeguards provided for Scheduled Castes and to inquire into specific complaints with respect to the deprivation of rights and safeguards of the Scheduled Castes, including the power to conduct an inquiry into alleged illegal transfers of Panchami land.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the 1st respondent from in any way proceeding with the hearing or adjudication of the complaint dated 21.10.2019 given by the 2nd respondent, registeredas FileNo.14/140/TN/2019/ESDW and culminating in notices dated 14.11.2019 and 13.12.2019 by the 1st respondent.)

1. The lis is to issue a writ of prohibition, to restrain the National Commission for schedule Caste from proceeding with the hearing or adjudication of the complaint dated 21.10.2019 given by the 2nd respondent herein.

2. The facts in brief would reveal that the petitioner Murasoli Trust is in occupation and the erstwhile owner of the subject property, namely Anjugam Pathippagam had leased out a portion of the property to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner purchased the property and patta has been transferred in the name of the Petitioner. A complaint has been registered by the 2nd respondent before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes [hereinafter referred to as 'NCSC', in short], stating that the subject land is a Panchami land (Depressed Class Land) assigned to the Scheduled Caste people and illegally transferred in the name of other persons. The complaint was registered by the 1st respondent and a notice was issued to the managing trustee of the petitioner's trust, asking them to appear in person before the 1st respondent. Having aggrieved from and out of the said notice issued by the 1st respondent, the writ of prohibition came to be instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

3. Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would mainly raise the following issues: -

Whether the complaint made by R.Srinivasan, who is not a member of Scheduled Caste Community and is not an aggrieved person maintainable?Whether the National Commission for scheduled Castes has jurisdiction to adjudicate title disputes of an immovable property under Article 338 of the Constitution of India?

Whether the National Commission for Scheduled Castes possesses powers of the Civil Court for the purpose of granting declaration of title or other reliefs over an immovable property?

Whether the Subject property is a Panchami land or land allotted to the depressed classes can be ascertained by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes?

Whether the registration of the complaint by the 1st respondent aroused out of political mala fides since the 2nd respondent / complainant is the State Secretary of BJP party and the petitioner trust is linked to the DMK party, which is one the principal opposition parties to the BJP.

Whether the action of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes in issuing notice and conducting an inquiry is vitiated by malice in law due to the fact that the vice chair person, who was hearing the matter belongs to the BJP party's Tamil Nadu unit, and subsequently appointed as Minister in the Union Government.

4. Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel would contend that there is no prima facie material produced along with the complaint before the NCSC to conduct an inquiry by invoking the powers under Article 338 of the Constitution of India. The power to declare title of an immovable property has not been vested with the NCSC under Article 338. Therefore, the NCSC has exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a vague complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, intended to score political mileage and to defame the petitioner. Therefore, the writ of prohibition is entertainable.

5. Declaration of title cannot be granted by the NCSC The 2nd respondent along with his complaint has not filed any document to establish that the subject property is a Panchami Land (DC land).

6. In support of the above contentions, Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Revenue Recor