G.Joel Vijay Raju vs Registrar, And Ano.

Mr. S. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel appears for the petitioner.

Mr. V. Ravikiran Rao, learned counsel represents respondent No.1.

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner pray that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF PROHIBITION, by declaring the action of the 1st respondent herein in taking of adjudication of a civil dispute which is already seized by the Civil Courts in HRC No.2655/2008 on the file of the 1st respondent as illegal, void abinitio and without jurisdiction and consequently prohibit the adjudication of the complaint in HRC No.2655/2008 on the file of the 1st respondent.”

Facts giving rise to filing of the Writ Petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is the son of respondent No.2 and a dispute between them with regard to the house property is pending adjudication in O.S.No.745 of 2008 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy. In the aforesaid Civil Suit, relief of declaration of title and possession has been sought.

During pendency of the aforesaid suit, respondent No.2 submitted an application to the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commission, Hyderabad, which thereupon issued a notice dated 03.10.2008 to the petitioner who has challenged the aforesaid notice in the Writ Petition.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The Supreme Court in G. Manikyamma v. Roudri Cooperative Housing Society Limited (2014) 15 SCC 197 has taken note of Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which deals with functions of the Human Rights Commission. The Supreme Court in paragraph 44 of the said decision held as under:

The functions and powers of the Commission are enumerated under Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which reads as follows:

“12. Functions of the Commission.- The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely-

(a) inquire, suo motu or on a petition presented to it by a victim or any person on his behalf, into complaint of-

(i) violation of human rights or abetment thereof; or

(ii) negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant;

(b) intervene in any proceeding involving any allegation of violation of human rights pending before a court with the approval of such court;

(c) visit, under intimation to the State Government, any jail or any other institution under the control of the State Government, where persons are detained or lodged for purposes of treatment, reformation or protection to study the living conditions of the inmates and make recommendations thereon;

(d) review the safeguards provided by or under the Constitution or any law for the time being in force for the protection of human rights and recommend measures for their effective implementation;

(e) review the factors, including acts of terrorism, that inhibit the enjoyment of human rights and recommend appropriate remedial measures;

(f) study treaties and other international instruments on human rights and make recommendations for their effective implementation;

(g) undertake and promote research in the field of human rights;

(h) spread human rights literacy among various sections of society and promote awareness of the safeguards available for the protection of these rights, through publications, the media, seminars and other available means;

(i) encourage the efforts of non-governmental organizations and institutions working in the field of human rights;

(j) such other functions as it may consider necessary for the promotion of human rights.”

It can be seen from the language, there is nothing in Section 12 which authorizes the Human Rights Commission to adjudicate upon the disputes of title and possession of property.

In view of aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court, it is evident that Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, does not authorize the Human Rights Commission to adjudicate upon the disputes with regard to the title and possession of the property.

Therefore, the notice dated 03.10.2008 issued by the Commission is quashed.

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.