Back
Minority Commission Crosses the Line: Kerala HC Slaps Down Unauthorized Eviction
In a swift ruling, the has declared that the cannot play landlord by ordering evictions, quashing its overreach in a heated property tussle. Justice Easwaran S. restored possession to petitioner Moideenkutty, underscoring that civil courts—not —handle such disputes.
From Sale Deeds to Sudden Eviction: The Spark of the Dispute
The saga began with two sale deeds (Exts. P1 and P2) executed by Moideenkutty in favor of Abdul Salam in , covering a residential property in Malappuram. Moideenkutty alleged the transactions were tainted by , claiming he remained in occupation. Salam, claiming ownership, approached the in (Ext. P3), seeking eviction.
Despite its mandate under the —focused on welfare, education, and safeguards for minorities—the Commission issued an eviction order (Ext. P4) on . It directed revenue and police officials (Exts. P5-P7) to execute it, leading to Moideenkutty's ouster by . Moideenkutty rushed to the High Court via WP(C) No. 15842 of 2026, filed during court vacation.
Petitioner's Plea vs. Respondent's Pushback
Moideenkutty argued the Commission lacked jurisdiction, as the dispute was a private civil matter unfit for its welfare-oriented powers. He highlighted his ongoing possession despite the deeds and stressed the need for civil court adjudication on fraud claims.
Salam countered vigorously, insisting the Commission could act under to address minority deprivations. He invoked equity, citing his health ailments and portraying Moideenkutty's hold as unjust. The Commission's counsel echoed this, defending the order as a probe into rights deprivation. State authorities stayed neutral, appearing via Government Pleader.
Peeling Back the Act: No Eviction Authority in Sight
Justice Easwaran S. dissected
, which empowers the Commission to monitor safeguards, inquire into complaints on social-economic rights, and recommend measures—but explicitly stops short of executive orders like evictions.
"A reading of the Preamble of the Act would clearly show the purpose... this Court could not find any such power which would enable the first respondent to pass orders in the nature of Ext.P4,"
the court noted.
The bench rejected
as a basis for bypassing civil courts, clarifying:
"Clause (c) of Section 9 cannot confer jurisdiction on the Commission to evict a person belonging to a minority community bypassing the jurisdiction of a civil court."
It emphasized the Commission's recommendatory role under
and
, slamming the direct instructions to police and revenue as "
" and void. No precedents were cited, but the ruling reinforces foundational administrative law principles on jurisdictional limits.
As echoed in reports, this aligns with the High Court's firm stance:
"The
recently held that the
cannot bypass the jurisdiction of a civil court to pass eviction order."
Judge's Sharpest Words: Quotes That Cut Deep
-
On overreach
:
"what is attempted is to bypass the civil remedy by filing an application before the Commission and that the Commissioner has ."
-
On powers
:
"the Commission has power only to make recommendations to the Government on the subjects mentioned therein."
-
Equity's limit
:
" and not otherwise. Equitable consideration cannot overweigh the lack of jurisdiction."
-
Jurisdictional void
:
"Such exercise is certainly and liable to be interfered with."
Back to Square One: Restored Possession, Open Courts Ahead
The writ was allowed on : Exts. P4-P6 quashed; the Commission deemed incompetent for such complaints. Revenue and police (Respondents 3-7) were ordered to restore Moideenkutty's possession within two days. Salam remains free to sue in civil court.
This precedent curbs administrative adventurism, ensuring minority bodies stick to advocacy, not adjudication. Property buyers beware: no shortcuts around civil justice, even with sympathetic pleas.
