Kerala High Court Says Minority Commission Cannot Evict Occupants Without Civil Court Order

The Kerala High Court held that the Kerala State Minority Commission cannot order eviction of a person by bypassing the jurisdiction of a civil court. The Court clarified that the Commission’s powers under the Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act, 2014 are limited to inquiry, monitoring, and making recommendations, and do not include adjudicating private property disputes or directing forcible eviction.

The case arose after the petitioner alleged that although two sale deeds had been executed in favour of the second respondent, he continued to remain in possession of the residential property and claimed that the documents had been obtained through fraud and undue influence. Instead of approaching a civil court, the second respondent filed a complaint before the Minority Commission seeking eviction of the petitioner.

The Commission entertained the complaint and issued directions to revenue and police authorities to evict the petitioner from the property. Acting on these directions, local authorities issued notices requiring the petitioner to vacate the premises, and the petitioner was eventually removed from possession.

Justice Easwaran S. observed that the Commission had clearly exceeded its statutory authority. The Court explained that Section 9(c) of the Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act only permits the Commission to inquire into complaints relating to deprivation of minority rights and suggest remedial measures. It does not empower the Commission to pass enforceable eviction orders or assume the role of a civil court.

The Court further noted that Section 9(e) of the Act only authorises the Commission to make recommendations to the Government. Under Section 11, those recommendations are to be placed before the Legislative Assembly along with details of action taken or reasons for non-acceptance. Therefore, the Commission’s role is recommendatory in nature and not adjudicatory.

Rejecting the argument that the Commission could act under its broader welfare powers, the Court held that disputes concerning possession and eviction from private property are matters for competent civil courts alone. The Bench stated that the respondent had attempted to bypass ordinary civil remedies by invoking the Commission’s jurisdiction.

The Court also criticised the Commission for directing police and revenue officials to execute the eviction, calling the exercise “without jurisdiction” and “colourable.” It emphasized that equitable considerations, including the respondent’s alleged medical condition, could not override statutory limits on jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the Commission’s orders and directed the authorities to restore possession of the property to the petitioner within two days. At the same time, the Court clarified that the second respondent remained free to pursue appropriate remedies before a competent civil court.

The decision reinforces the principle that statutory commissions created for welfare and advisory purposes cannot assume powers reserved for judicial forums, especially in private civil disputes involving property and possession