Minority Commission Can't Bypass Civil Court's Jurisdiction To Pass Eviction Orders: Kerala High Court

Justice Easwaran S. remarked:

“what is attempted is to bypass the civil remedy by filing an application before the Commission and that the Commissioner has overstepped its jurisdiction and issued…order requiring the petitioner to be evicted from the premises… Still further, the extent of overstepping of the jurisdiction of the Commissioner is evident from the fact that the Commissioner has gone ahead and instructed the revenue authorities as well as the police authorities to take such steps to evict the petitioner. The aforesaid action is clearly without jurisdiction and hence void and liable to be interfered with by this Court.”

The petitioner had executed two sale deeds in favour of the party respondent. According to the petitioner, these were obtained by exerting fraud and undue influence and the property covered by the deeds remains to be in his possession. However, the party respondent (2^nd respondent) invoked the jurisdiction of the Commission (1^st respondent) seeking to evict the petitioner from the property.

The Commission then entertained the complaint and pass an order directing to evict the petitioner from the property. It also issued a communication to the Tahsildar, Sub-Collector, and Police officials to take action for evicting him. Based on this, the Tahsildar issued notice to the petitioner to vacate the premises. He was thereafter evicted. Aggrieved, he came before the High Court.

The petitioner contended that the eviction order was passed without jurisdiction and sought to set aside the same. The party respondent argued that the Commission has jurisdiction to entertain his complaint and order eviction.

Looking at the Act, the Court opined that the Commission ought not have entertained the party respondent's grievance and his remedy was to approach a civil court:

“Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act, 2014 was enacted to constitute a State Commission for the comprehensive educational advancement, welfare, protection and empowerment of Minorities and to provide the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto… Ideally, the first respondent ought to have desisted from entertaining complaint… That apart, the grievance of the second respondent, does not relate to any of the purposes for which the Commission was constituted… the remedy of the second respondent is to invoke the jurisdiction of a competent civil court.”

Though the party respondent contended that the Commission could pass the impugned order in accordance with Section 9(c), the Court rejected the contention:

“This Court is unable to subscribe to the above contention for the simple reason that, clause (c) of Section 9 cannot confer jurisdiction on the Commission to evict a person belonging to a minority community bypassing the jurisdiction of a civil court. Clause (e) of Section 9 delineates the power of the Commission and makes it clear that it has power only to make recommendations to the Government on the subjects mentioned therein.”

Thus, the Court set aside the Commission's order and allowed the plea. It was made clear that the party respondent has the liberty to approach a civil court for relief.

Case No: WP(C) No. 15842 of 2026

Case Title: Moideenkutty v. Kerala State Minority Commission and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 247

Counsel for the petitioner: Luke J. Chirayil, Zainudheen P., Chithra C. Edadan, Jacob Victor, Neha Ramakrishnan, A.R. Thejas Krishna, Aswanth S.P.

Counsel for the respondents: Jibu P. Thomas, Nagraj Narayanan, Saijo Hassan, Rajesh Babu T., Bappu Galib Salam, Aliya Muhammed Shaduli, Sneha Sabu

Click to Read/Download Judgment