State Disability Commissioner Has No Jurisdiction To Adjudicate Land Disputes Between Private Parties: Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the State Disability Commissioner has no jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes relating to title over immovable property between private parties. The Court observed that while the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 confers certain powers of a civil court upon the Commissioner for the purpose of conducting inquiries under the Act, it does not...
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the State Disability Commissioner has no jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes relating to title over immovable property between private parties. The Court observed that while the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 confers certain powers of a civil court upon the Commissioner for the purpose of conducting inquiries under the Act, it does not empower the authority to decide land disputes, which fall exclusively within the domain of competent civil courts.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sri Ananda Sen was hearing two connected writ petitions arising out of an order passed by the State Disability Commissioner, Jharkhand. In W.P.(C) No. 451 of 2020, the petitioners challenged an order dated June 28, 2019 passed by the State Disability Commissioner, contending that it wrongly determined title over land despite their long-standing possession. The connected petition, W.P.(C) No. 915 of 2020, was filed by a person with benchmark disability seeking implementation of the Commissioner's order and action against persons allegedly obstructing his peaceful enjoyment of the property.
The petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 451 of 2020 submitted that the disputed land belonged to their ancestors and that they had remained in peaceful possession for several decades. They contended that the State Disability Commissioner had exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding issues relating to title and directing the revenue authorities to act accordingly.
On the other hand, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 915 of 2020 submitted that he was a person with benchmark disability under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. He alleged that certain persons had attempted to grab his landed property because of his disability and that he had approached the State Disability Commissioner seeking protection. It was further submitted that as the Commissioner's directions were not implemented by the authorities, he was compelled to approach the High Court.
Examining the impugned order, the High Court noted that the State Disability Commissioner had entered into the question of title over the disputed property and had directed the revenue authorities to take consequential action. Acting upon that communication, the Additional Collector had directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to conduct an inquiry and submit a compliance report. The High Court referred to the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 as well as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities while examining the scope of the Commissioner's powers.
The Bench observed that under Section 82 of the 2016 Act, the State Commissioner is deemed to be a civil court only for limited purposes connected with conducting inquiries and investigations under the Act. The Court held that these procedural powers cannot be construed as conferring jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes relating to title over immovable property. The Bench further reiterated the settled legal position that revenue authorities also lack jurisdiction to determine title, which can only be decided by a competent civil court. It observed:
“From the entire case record, I find that just because Narendra Prasad Singh is a disabled person, he has approached the State Disability Commissioner. Dispute has got nothing to do with his disability. It is a land dispute between two persons. Both the persons are claiming some right over the property in question... It is not a case that the disabled was denied access to justice and such disabled had approached the Commissioner. He could have easily approached the Civil Court. He chose a wrong forum, which is not meant to resolve the disputes raised by him.”
It further held that such disputes are purely private in nature and bear no nexus to the disability of either party. Observing that the proper remedy was to approach the competent civil court, the Bench held:
“The State Disability Commissioner is not vested with the power to adjudicate a land dispute between the parties, which is absolutely within the domain of a Civil Court.”
The Court concluded that by deciding the dispute relating to title, the State Disability Commissioner had travelled completely beyond the jurisdiction conferred under the 2016 Act.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside Letter No. 388 dated June 28, 2019 issued by the State Disability Commissioner.
Case Title: Krit Yadav & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 451 of 2020.
Appearance: Munna Lal Yadav, and Mr. Binod Singh for Petitioners. Mr. P.C. Sinha and Mr. Binod Singh for Respondents.