THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.662 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. Bandi Sai Vamshi, learned counsel for the
appellants and Mr. K.Buchi Babu, learned counsel for
respondent No.1. We have also heard
Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageswara Rao, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents No.3 to 5.
2. Appellants before us were respondents No.5 and 6 in the related writ petition, being W.P.No.17710 of 2021. Respondent No.1, as the writ petitioner, had filed the related writ petition questioning the order of respondent No.6 i.e., National Commission for Backward Classes, dated 05.08.2021 directing the District Collector & Magistrate, Nalgonda District, to provide all assistance, if requested, to demarcate and takeover the patta land admeasuring Ac.1.19 guntas in Survey No.330 of Gollaguda Village, Nalgonda Mandal, Nalgonda District. It 2 appears that there is a land dispute between the appellants on the one hand and respondent No.1 on the other hand for which appellants have instituted O.S.No.168 of 2016 pending on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge at Miryalguda. During the pendency of the civil suit, appellants also approached respondent No.6, whereafter the impugned order dated 05.08.2021 was passed. Assailing this order, respondent No.1 filed the related writ petition.
3. Learned Single Judge framed the question for consideration as to whether respondent No.6 has the jurisdiction to decide civil and property disputes?
4. After considering the pleadings and an order dated 02.02.2022 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.11761 of 2021 and batch which dealt with power and jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission, learned Single Judge held that the ratio laid down in the said decision is squarely applicable to respondent No.6 as well. Under Article 338B(5) of the Constitution of India, respondent No.6 has the mandate for safeguarding social 3 and educationally backward classes, to enquire into specific complaints with respect to deprivation of rights etc., and to make recommendations as to the measures to be taken by the State Governments for protection and welfare of socially and educationally backwards classes. Respondent No.6 does not have the jurisdiction to decide title issues. Accordingly, learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 05.08.2021 and allowed the writ petition.
5. We have carefully perused the order passed by respondent No.6 dated 05.08.2021 as well as the previous communication dated 21.06.2021. When respondent No.6 was aware of pendency of civil suit, which is reflected in the aforesaid communication, it ought not to have issued the impugned direction which, in any view of the matter, is beyond its jurisdiction.
6. Therefore, learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the aforesaid order dated 05.08.2021. However, we make it clear that rival claims to title will be decided in O.S.No.168 of 2016 and any observations made 4 while disposing of the writ petition and this writ appeal would not influence the pending civil suit.
7. Subject to the above, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 17.10.2022 vs