A. SHANIDA BEEVI V. SCHEDULED CASTE SCHEDULED TRIBE COMMISSION

WP(C)/31861/2015

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by A. Shanida Beevi challenging the actions of the Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which were based on a complaint regarding property rights. The petitioner argued that the Commission lacked the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings on a property dispute that had been conclusively settled by a previous court judgment. The Commission's actions were contested as they sought to establish title over the property, which was already the subject of a final civil judgment. The court examined the powers of the Commission under the Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2007, particularly focusing on Section 9, and found that the Commission overstepped its authority by attempting to revisit a matter that had been conclusively decided by a civil court.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 692297 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Calcutta Discount Company v. Income Tax Officer [(1961) 41 ITR 191]
• Laws Referred To: Kerala State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2007
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V PRAKASH
• Assessee Lawyers: M P RAMNATH
• Keywords: Jurisdiction; Property Rights; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission; Final judgment; Binding decree
• Section: 9

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.31861 OF 2015(G) PETITIONER: A. SHANIDA BEEVI,D/O.ABDUL SAMAD, NIZAM MANZIL, KURUKULATH KONAM, PULLIYOORKUNAM P.O, MADAVOOR VILLAGE, VARKALA TALUK, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 695 604. BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.RAMNATH SRI.BEPIN PAUL SRI.P.RAJESH (KOTTAKKAL) SRI.SHALU VARGHESE SMT.S.SANDHYA SMT.UMA R.KAMATH SEI.M.VARGHESE VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: 1 SCHEDULED CASTE SCHEDULED TRIBE COMMISSION AYYANKALI NAGAR, VELLAYAMBALAM P.O, TRIVANDRUM 695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SHIRESTADAR. 2 VASANTHA,DAUGHTER IN LAW OF NEELAMPI KUNCHIYAN AND W/O.SASI, CHARUVILA, UROOR KONAM, VANCHIYOOR, ALAMNKODE, ATTINGAL, TRIVANDRUM 695 101. 3 JAGADHANAN,SC/ST MONITORING COMMITTEE MEMBER, TC 31/195(3), ROHINI NIVAS, ITI JUNCTION, CHAKA, PETTA P.O, TRIVANDRUM. 4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,MADAVOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, MADAVOOR, CHIRAYINKEEZH TALUK, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 5 THE TAHSILDAR,VARKALA TALUK OFFICE, VARKALA, TRIVANDRUM DISTRIT. 6 THE TALUK SURVEYOR,VARKALA TALUK OFFICE, VARKALA, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. R1, R4 TO R6 BY SRI. K.V. PRAKASH, SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SC/ST) R2-R3 BY ADV. SMT.PRAMEELA.C.K. OTHER PRESENT: K.V PRAKASH SPECIAL G.P FOR S.C/ST DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.31861/2015 2 (CR) JUDGMENT Dated this the 17th day of March 2020 This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P8 and P9. Ext.P8 is a notice issued by the 1st respondent on Ext.P9 complaint. The 1st respondent, the Kerala State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ('the Commission'), is constituted under the Kerala State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2007 ('the Act'). 2. According to the petitioner, she is the daughter of one Abdul Samad, who had gifted certain properties to the petitioner through the document marked as Ext.P1. Ext.P2 is a correction deed in respect of Ext.P1. Ext.P9 complaint is filed by one Jagadhanan (R3) projecting the interest of the 2nd respondent Vasantha, who claims to be the daughter-in-law of one Neelampi Kunchiyan (now deceased). Vasantha and Neelampi Kunchiyan are stated to belong to one among the Scheduled Castes. Neelampi Kunchiyan had filed O.S.No.85/1967 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Varkala against W.P.(C)No.31861/2015 3 one Abdul Khader Lebha and the aforesaid Abdul Samad (father of the petitioner) claiming declaration of title and possession of the plaint schedule property and also for injunction. I need not, for the purposes of this case, notice the rival claims put forth by the parties in O.S.No.85/1967 except to state that the claim was in respect of the very same property which forms subject matter of Ext.P9 complaint. Ext.P11 is the judgment of the Munsiff Court, Varkala, on 28.11.1969, finding that the plaintiff Neelampi Kunchiyan had failed to establish his right to the reliefs sought for in the plaint. An appeal was filed against the judgment and decree of the Munsiff Court, Varkala in O.S.No.85/1967, before the Sub Court, Attingal as A.S.No.80/1970. The said appeal has been dismissed by judgment dated 13.7.1972. The judgment and decree has thus become final on 13.7.1972. It appears from a reading of Ext.P9 that the 2nd respondent (daughter-in-law of the plaintiff Neelampi Kunchiyan) seeks to invoke the powers of the Commission essentially to establish title over the property, which was the subject matter of O.S.No.85/1967. 3. I have heard Sri. M.P. Ramanath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.V. Prakash, learned Special W.P.(C)No.31861/2015 4 Government Pleader appearing for the SC/ST Department. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out the provisions of the Act and particularly Section 9 thereof and contends that none of the functions enumerated in Section 9 empowers the commission to undo a binding inter partes judgment and decree. He would contend, therefore, that the action taken by the Commission on Ext.P9 complaint is totally without jurisdiction and this Court must, therefore, interdict the proceedings at this stage. He states that this Court need not wait for the final outcome of the proceedings as the proceedings are totally without jurisdiction. He would assert that, on the basis of the principles laid down in Calcutta Discount Company v. Income Tax Officer [ (1961) 41 ITR 191], this Court should not drive the parties to lengthy and unnecessary proceedings, if it is to be found that the proceedings are totally without jurisdiction. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Department, on the other hand, would rely on the counter affidavit dated 5.7.2016 and contend inter alia that the Commission was well within its authority and jurisdiction to initiate proceedings on W.P.(C)No.31861/2015 5 Ext.P9 complaint and it is for the petitioner to establish that those proceedings should be dropped, by appearing before the Commission and arguing the matter on merits. He would invite my attention to Section 9(b), of the Act, in particular. I notice from the counter affidavit dated 5.7.2016 that, on the basis of the directions issued by the SC/ST Commission, the revenue officials have initiated proceedings to identify the land, which was claimed by the 2nd respondent under her father-in-law Neelampi Kunchiyan. I also notice the allegation of the petitioner that the revenue officials are, on the basis of oral directions issued by the Commission, attempting to carve out the property over which the 2nd respondent claims title and possession through the aforesaid Neelampi Kunchiyan. 6. I have perused the provisions of the Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2007. I find that the functions of the Commission are enumerated in Section 9 of the Act. It is no doubt, true, as pointed out by the learned Senior Government Pleader, that the provisions of Section 9(b) empowers the Commission to enquire into the specific complaints with respect to deprivation of rights W.P.(C)No.31861/2015 6 and safeguards of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Kerala and to take up such matters with the appropriate authorities. However, I cannot read Section 9(b) as empowering the Commission to reopen matters which have attained finality in the manner indicated above and to re-determine the rights, which have been settled by a judgment and decree of a competent Civil Court. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation to hold that the initiation of proceedings by the 1st respondent Commission, on the basis of Ext.P9 complaint, is without jurisdiction. In Calcutta Discount Company (Supra) it was held:- “The High Courts have power to issue in a fit case an order prohibiting an executive authority from acting without jurisdiction. Where such action of an executive authority acting without jurisdiction subjects or is likely to subject a person to lengthy proceedings and unnecessary harassment, the High Courts, it is well settled, will issue appropriate orders or directions to prevent such consequences.” I, therefore, quash all proceedings initiated by the Commission on the basis of Ext.P9 complaint and declare that no proceedings W.P.(C)No.31861/2015 7 can be continued in respect of any item of property, which is the subject matter of Ext.P11 judgment in O.S.No. 85/1967. I also direct respondents 4 and 5 to continue to receive the tax from the petitioner in respect of the properties in question, without reference to any proceedings that had been initiated by the 1st respondent. The Writ Petition (Civil) is allowed in the manner indicated above. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.31861/2015 8 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NO.1089/1976 SRO KILIMANOOR, IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE CORRECTION DEED NO.1039/2004 SRO KILIMANOOR, IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE THANDAPER EXTRACT IN THANDAPER NO.4047, MADAVOOR VILLAGE OF ABDUL SAMAD, FATHER OF PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 27.10.80 BY THE PETITIONER IN THANDAPER NO. 4047, MADAVOOR VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P5. COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 17.8.98 BY THE PETITIONER IN THANDAPER NO. 4047, MADAVOOR VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P6. COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT DT. 9.1.03 BY PETITIONER IN RE-SURVEY THANDAPER NO.2592, IN BLOCK NO.28, MADAVOOR VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P7. COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 16.5.12 BY THE PETITIONER IN RE-SURVEY THANDAPER NO. 2592, IN BLOCK NO.28, MADAVOOR VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P8 EXHIBIT P8. COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10.9.15 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT FROM 5TH RESPONDENTS OFFICE THROUGH 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. W.P.(C)No.31861/2015 9 EXHIBIT P9 EXHIBIT P9. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 7.4.14 AS GIVEN FROM IST RESPONDENTS OFFICE TO THE PETITIONER SHOWING PAGES 1,3,5 ALONE. EXHIBIT P10 EXHIBIT P10. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.9.15 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT COMMISSION IN FILE NO.1781/A2/2014/TVM. EXHIBIT P11 EXHIBIT P11. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.69 IN OS 85/1967 OF THE HONOURABLE MUNSIFFS COURT, VARKALA NEELAMPI KUNCHIYAN (PLAINTIFF) ABDUL KHADER LABBA AND SAMAD (DEFENDANTS). EXHIBIT P12 EXHIBIT P12. COPY OF THE POLICE PROTECTION APPLICATION DATED 26.9.15 SUPPOSED TO BE GIVEN BY 3RD RESPONDENT AS HANDED OVER FROM THE COMMISSION, WHEN EXT. P10 IS SUBMITTED. "