LexG. MANIKYAMMA & OTHERS versus ROUDRI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-. [2014J 14 S.C.R. 853 G. MANIKYAMMA& OTHERS v. ROUDRI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & OTHERS A (CivilAppeal Nos. 10534-10535of2014) B NOVEMBER 25, 2014 [J. CHELAMESWAR ANDS. A. BOBDE; JJ.] Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - s. 12 - Jurisdiction of Human Rights Commission - Scope of - C Purchase of land by Co-operative Society from the holders of land ~hich was declared ceiling surplus under 1976 Act- Exemption from the Act sought by the Society - Encroachment on the land - Decision of State to provide houses to the encroachers on certain extent of land claimed 0 by the Society - Complaints before Human Rights Commission by the encroachers as well as the Society - Commission directed the State to shift the encroachers to an alternative site - Writ petition by the Society seeking direction to implement order of the Commission - Petition E allowed - Writ appeal dismissed - On appeal, held: The title and possession of the property were not determined by the competent authority- Human Rights Commission does not have power to adjudicate upon title and possession - Therefore, jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission F was wrongly in•oked- Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976-s.10. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The function and powers of the Human Rights Commission are enumerated under Section 12 G of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. There is · nothing in Section 12 which authorises the Human Rights Commission to adjudicate upon the disputes of title and possession of property. Thus, the Human Rights Commission does not have any jurisdiction to deal with H 853 854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014]14 S.C.R. A the disputed question of title and possession of the property. Both the first respondent Society as well as the encroachers, wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of the . Human Rights Commission instead of pursuing the appropriate remedies available to them in law. B [Paras 42, 43, 46 and 47][875-A; 87 4-F-G] 2. Until the procedure contemplated under Section 10 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is followed, the land which is determined to be the excess vacant land of any landholder does not either vest in the C Government or the possession thereof can be taken by the State. There is nothing on record to establish that the larid in question was duly taken possession· by the Government under the provisions of the Act. Until possession is duly taken, property still remains private D property notwithstanding the determination that such property is "land in excess of the ceiling limit" under the Act. The persons in possession of such property, whatever be the nature of their possession-whether they are encroachers or persons sucb as the first respondent E Society- cannot be evicted by force. All this requires a thorough examination of the respective rights of the various parties and the authority of the State to deal with the property in question. [Para 41][874-B-F] 3. Apart from that, there is neither any examination F nor any determination by any competent body regarding the rights of the first respondent Society and its members on one hand, and the encroachers on the other hand, for that matter, even the rights.and authority of the State over the property in dispute. [~ara 48][877-E-F] G H PT. Munichikkanna Reddy, vs. Revamma 2007 (5) SCR 491 : (2007) 6 SCC59- distinguished. Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao &Anr. 1982 (3) SCR 500: AIR 1982 SC 1081 - referred to. • G MANIKYAMMAv. ROUDRI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. Beau/ane Properties Ltd. v. Palmer (2005) 3 WLR 554 ; JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd. v. United Kingdom (2005) ECHR 921 - referred to. CASE LAW REFERENCE 2007 (5) SCR 491 distinguished para 32 1982 (5) SCR 500 (2005) 3 WLR 554 referred to referred to para 36. para 44 (2005) ECHR 921 referred to para 44 855 A B CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. C 10534-10535 of2014. From the Judgment and Order dated 02-07-2012 and 24-01-2013 of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 580 of 2011 and WAMP No. 59 of 2013 in Writ Appeal SR. No. 6051 of 2013. D With CivilAppeal No. 10536 of 2014 Adinarayana Rao, Sr.Adv., G.V.R. Choudary, K Shivraj Chouduri, A Chandra Sekhar, P. Venkat Reddy, Sumanth E Nookala, Mis Venkat Palwai Law Associates, D. Mahesh Babu, S. Ashokanand Kumar, M.P. Shorawala, G.N. Reddy,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.