The Human Rights Commission lacks jurisdiction over civil property disputes, which should be resolved in civil courts respecting due process.

J U D G M E N T

S. Manikumar, C. J.

Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission in HRMP No. 10557 of 2015 dated 04.07.2016.

2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as under:- 2.1. Petitioner is a Grama Panchayat. According to the petitioner, Mr. Rajendran, the 1st respondent, has filed a complaint before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, the 2nd respondent, alleging that the registered property belonging to the 1st respondent was trespassed upon by members of the petitioner Grama Panchayat, and a road was cut across the property. Notice was served on the petitioner, who, vide their objection dated 09.05.2016, contended that the widening of the road happened seven years back. The existing road was widened on either side by increasing the width by 1 ½ feet by leveling the soil. On enquiry, petitioner came to know that persons residing nearby had widened the same for their easy ingress and egress and the Panchayat had nothing to do with it.

2.2. Petitioner has submitted that the Commission, on the basis of the report submitted by the Additional Tahsildar, Kattakkada, by order dated 04.07.2016, wrongly concluded that it was not possible for the petitioner to wash off its hands, and therefore, was bound to pay compensation, and also restore back the property used for widening of the road, ignoring the fact that the widening of the road was carried out by the general public, so as to give easy access to the tribal settlement. The 1st respondent and the neighbouring owners had voluntarily surrendered portions of their property for widening of the road, and the road was laid with the full knowledge and consent of the 1st respondent in the year 2008, for approximately 5 meters width for a length of 500 meters. The petitioner was not liable or responsible for the same. The very fact that the complaint has been filed after a long lapse of 7 years after the road has been widened clearly indicates the malafides of the 1st respondent, which has been completely ignored by the 2nd respondent.

2.3. Petitioner has further submitted that the 1st respondent sought for implementation of Ext. P3 and notice dated 18.06.2018 was received by the petitioner from the State Government authorities demanding explanation on the side of the Panchayat. The complaint does not fall within the purview of the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent has absolutely no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint of this nature, which can only be adjudicated by a civil court. Furthermore, the Commission went wrong in passing orders as against the petitioner, without gathering any evidence as to who had actually trespassed and widened the road, and imposition of orders to restore as well as payment of compensation, is illegal and against all principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience. Ext. P3 order is therefore illegal, without jurisdiction, ultra vires and is vitiated by lack of application of mind and void ab initio, hence liable to be set aside.

2.4. Petitioner has also submitted that the present Secretary of the petitioner Panchayat took charge of his office only on 04.01.2018. The petitioner was not aware of Ext. P3 order of the Human Rights Commission in the complaint lodged by the 1st respondent. It was only when the representation dated 16.01.2018 was submitted by the 1st respondent before the petitioner's Panchayat, the petitioner came to understand that Ext. P3 order was passed by the Human Rights Commission. The file pertaining to the case filed by the 1st respondent was misplaced, and in spite of the best efforts on the part of the petitioner to trace out the same, the same could not be located in time.

2.5. That apart, it is submitted that in view of the fact that the 1st respondent had approached the Government to implement Ext. P3 order of the 2nd respondent, the Panchayat Committee on 17.10.2018 took a decision to challenge the decision of the 2nd respondent b