Recently, the Kerala High Court held that the Kerala State Minority Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain complaints seeking eviction from residential property or to bypass remedies available before competent civil courts. The Court quashed eviction proceedings initiated through the Commission and directed restoration of possession to the petitioner, strongly observing that the Commission had overstepped its jurisdiction by issuing eviction directions without any statutory authority.
Brief Facts:
The case stemmed from a dispute concerning possession of a residential property covered under two sale deeds executed in favour of the second respondent. Alleging fraud and undue influence in the execution of the documents, the petitioner continued to remain in possession of the property. Instead of approaching a civil court, the second respondent moved the Kerala State Minority Commission seeking eviction of the petitioner. Acting on the complaint, the Commission directed eviction and instructed revenue and police authorities to implement the same, following which the petitioner was dispossessed from the property. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Kerala High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the Commission’s jurisdiction under the Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act, 2014, to adjudicate private property disputes.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner argued that the Kerala State Minority Commission had acted wholly without jurisdiction by entertaining what was essentially a private civil dispute relating to possession of immovable property. The Counsel contended that the Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act, 2014, was enacted to safeguard the welfare, protection, empowerment and educational advancement of minorities and did not confer adjudicatory powers to direct eviction from residential premises. The Petitioner further submitted that the Commission had illegally bypassed the jurisdiction of competent civil courts and unlawfully invoked police and revenue machinery to dispossess him from the property. Reliance was placed upon the statutory scheme of Section 9 of the Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act, 2014, to argue that the Commission’s functions were merely recommendatory in nature and did not include coercive powers of eviction.
Contentions of the Respondent:
On the other hand, the Counsel contended that the Commission possessed jurisdiction under Section 9(c) of the Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act, 2014, which empowers it to enquire into complaints concerning deprivation of social, economic, educational and linguistic rights of minorities. The Respondent argued that the Petitioner continued to occupy the property despite execution of the sale deeds and that the Commission was justified in intervening to protect the rights of the purchaser. The Respondents also attempted to invoke equitable considerations, asserting that the second respondent was suffering from serious health ailments and therefore deserved protection through immediate implementation of the Commission’s directions.
Observation of the Court:
The Court observed that the Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act, 2014, was enacted for the welfare, protection, empowerment and educational advancement of minorities and not for adjudicating private civil disputes relating to possession of property. After examining Section 9 of the Act, the Bench held that none of the statutory provisions empowered the Commission to direct eviction from residential premises. According to the Court, disputes involving sale deeds, possession, fraud or undue influence fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of competent civil courts and cannot be converted into proceedings before a statutory minority body merely to bypass ordinary civil remedies.
The Bench observed that the proceedings initiated before the Minority Commission were a clear attempt to bypass the jurisdiction of civil courts. The Court held that Section 9(c) of the Act cannot be interpreted to confer powers upon the Commission to evict a person from immovable property, while Section 9(e) only authorises the Commission to make recommendations to the Government and not issue coercive directions. According to the Bench, accepting such an interpretation would effectively permit the Commission to function as a parallel civil court without any statutory sanction, amounting to a clear case of jurisdictional overreach.
The Court observed that the Commission had acted wholly without jurisdiction by directing police and revenue authorities to implement the eviction order. The Bench described the action as clearly without jurisdiction and emphasised that statutory bodies cannot assume powers beyond those expressly conferred by the parent enactment. It further held that the invocation of coercive state machinery for the enforcement of an order unsupported by law was legally void and liable to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court held that equitable considerations cannot legitimise an exercise of power lacking statutory authority and firmly observed that equity follows law and not otherwise. Rejecting the plea raised on behalf of the respondent regarding equities in his favour, the Bench clarified that the proper remedy available was to approach the competent civil court for recovery of possession. The Court therefore concluded that the Commission had exceeded its statutory limits and that its orders were legally unsustainable.
The decision of the Court:
In the light of the foregoing discussion, the Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the eviction orders, communications and consequential proceedings initiated by the Kerala State Minority Commission. The Court further declared that the complaint itself was not maintainable before the Commission and directed the authorities to restore possession of the property to the petitioner within two days. However, liberty was granted to the purchaser to approach the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs in accordance with law.
Case Title: Moideenkutty Vs. The Kerala State Minority Commission Anjaneya
Case No.: WP(C) No. 15842 of 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Easwaran S
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Luke J Chirayil, Adv. Zainudheen P., Adv. Chithra C.Edadan, Adv. Jacob Victor, Adv. Neha Ramakrishnan, Adv. A.R.Thejas Krishna, Adv. Aswanth S. P.
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Jibu P Thomas, Adv. Nagraj Narayanan, Adv. Saijo Hassan, Adv. Rajesh Babu T., Adv .Bappu Galib Salam, Adv. Aliya Muhammed Shaduli, Adv. Sneha Sabu
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kerala_New_High_Court.jpg
