Can State Minority Commission Pass Eviction Orders? Kerala High Court Answers

The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. was considering an appeal filed challenging a decision of the Single Judge that set aside an eviction order passed by the Minority Commission (2nd respondent) and directed that the evictee/writ petitioner (1st respondent) be put back in possession of the property.

“The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by taking note of the legal provisions and considering the relevant statutory provisions and interpreting Section 9(c) of the Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act, 2014. In particular, he found that clause (c) of Section 9 does not confer jurisdiction on the Commission to evict a person belonging to a minority community bypassing the jurisdiction of a civil court. On a perusal of the provisions of the Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act, 2014, we find that the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in holding that the 2nd respondent had no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter and that the remedy available to the appellant was to approach a civil court and seek appropriate reliefs if eviction of the 1st respondent was to be carried out,” it observed.

The writ petitioner had executed two sale deeds in favour of the appellant. 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 appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the State Minority Commission seeking to evict the petitioner from the property.

The Commission entertained the complaint and passed 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 filed a writ petition before the Single Bench.

The Single Bench's decision directing the writ petitioner to be put back in possession of the property is presently challenged before the Division Bench by the appellant. The Single Bench had also opined that only the competent civil court can give relief to the parties.

The appellant submitted before the Division Bench that he had already approached the civil court seeking declaration of his right, title and interest over the property before the impugned judgment was passed.

He further told that the civil court had already passed an order of ad interim injunction against the writ petitioner, just one day before the date of the impugned judgment. The civil court, had in the order, restrained the petitioner from disrupting the appellant's peaceful possession of the property. However, the same was not known to the Single Judge.

After hearing the parties, the Court upheld the Single Judge's finding regarding lack of jurisdiction of Minority Commission to pass eviction orders. However, it was of the opinion that the Single Judge's judgment had to be modified with respect to the parties' status in light of the prior civil court order.

“we modify the impugned judgment to the extent of deleting the direction therein to the authorities to put back the 1st respondent in possession of the property. Instead we direct that the parties be restored to their status quo ante and to their status immediately prior to the date of the impugned judgment. We make it clear that we have not determined the inter se rights of the parties to the lis and they are at liberty to raise all contentions before the civil court in the pending suit,” it added.

Thus, it partly allowed the appeal.

Case No: WA No. 1138 of 2026

Case Title: Abdul Salam v. Moideenkutty and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 345

Counsel for the appellant: Rajesh Sivaramankutty, Rajesh Babu T.

Counsel for the respondents: Jibu P. Thomas, Sneha Babu, B.N. Unnikrishna Kaimal – Sr. Government Pleader

Click to Read/Download Judgment