Kerala HC: State Minority Commission Cannot Order Eviction, Bypassing Civil Court

A Division Bench upheld the finding that the Kerala State Minority Commission lacks jurisdiction to direct eviction of a person, but modified the Single Judge's order restoring possession in light of a prior civil court injunction.

On 4 June 2026, a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K., decided W.A. No. 1138 of 2026 on the day it came up for admission. The Bench confirmed that the Kerala State Minority Commission has no jurisdiction under Section 9(c) of the Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act, 2014 to pass an order directing the eviction of a person and handing over property to another, thereby bypassing the civil court. However, the Division Bench modified the Single Judge's direction to restore the writ petitioner to possession, because the appellant had already obtained an ad interim injunction from the District Judge, Manjeri, a day before the Single Judge's order was passed — a fact that had not been placed before the Single Judge.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The appellant, Abdul Salam of Malappuram district, was the second respondent in the original writ petition filed by Moideenkutty, the first respondent. The two men had been involved in a real estate business arrangement. Moideenkutty's case was that the two registered sale deeds — Exts. P1 and P2 — executed by him in favour of Abdul Salam were never intended to be acted upon and were executed only as security for their business dealings, making them null and void.

More than six years after the execution of those sale deeds, Abdul Salam approached the Kerala State Minority Commission. The Commission, after considering a report from the Station House Officer, Valancherry Police Station, passed Ext. P4 order directing the authorities to evict Moideenkutty from the property and hand it over to Abdul Salam. The Commission also directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police to provide police protection if requested by the jurisdictional authorities.

Acting on the Commission's directions, the Sub Collector, Tirur, issued orders for removal, and the Tahsildar published Ext. P6 notice requiring Moideenkutty to vacate within seven days. When Moideenkutty did not comply, he was evicted from the premises on 22 April 2026. It was at that point that he filed WP(C) No. 15842 of 2026 before the High Court challenging Ext. P4.

The Jurisdiction Question Under Section 9(c)

The Single Judge, after hearing both sides, allowed the writ petition on 5 May 2026. He examined the relevant provisions of the Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act, 2014 and held that clause (c) of Section 9 does not confer jurisdiction on the Commission to evict a person belonging to a minority community by bypassing the jurisdiction of a civil court. Ext. P4 was quashed, and Ext. P3 application was declared not maintainable before the Commission. The Single Judge further directed respondents 3 to 7 — the Sub Collector, Tahsildar, District Police Chief, Deputy Superintendent of Police, and Station House Officer — to put Moideenkutty back in possession of the property within two days of receiving a copy of the judgment. Liberty was granted to Abdul Salam to approach a competent civil court for recovery of possession.

Abdul Salam challenged this judgment in the present writ appeal. His primary grievance was not with the finding on the Commission's jurisdiction, but with the direction to restore Moideenkutty to possession. He pointed out that on 4 May 2026 — one day before the Single Judge's judgment — the District Judge (Vacation Judge), Manjeri, had passed an ad interim injunction in I.A. No. 2/2026 in O.S. No. 118/2026, restraining Moideenkutty and his men from causing any disturbance to Abdul Salam's peaceful possession of the property. This order had not been brought to the Single Judge's notice.

How the Division Bench Reasoned

Justice Preeta A.K., writing for the Bench, agreed entirely with the Single Judge's analysis of the Commission's jurisdiction. The Bench found that the Single Judge was “perfectly justified in holding that the 2nd respondent had no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter.” The proper remedy for Abdul Salam, if he sought eviction of Moideenkutty, was to approach a civil court.

On the question of the registered sale deeds, the Bench made an observation relevant to the pending civil suit. The registration of a sale deed, the Bench noted, creates a presumption that it was executed after obtaining valid consideration. Moideenkutty had not challenged the registered sale deeds before any forum, nor sought their cancellation before the registering authority, for over five years. The Bench held that the documents could not be treated as null and void merely on Moideenkutty's assertion, unless he legally rebutted the presumption arising from registration.

The Bench was careful to clarify that this observation was not a determination of the inter se rights of the parties. Those rights remained entirely open for adjudication before the civil court in the pending suit.

The critical modification concerned the possession direction. Because the District Judge, Manjeri, had already passed an ad interim injunction in Abdul Salam's favour on 4 May 2026 — a fact unknown to the Single Judge when he directed restoration of possession on 5 May 2026 — the Division Bench held that the direction to put Moideenkutty back in possession could not stand. Giving effect to that direction would have conflicted directly with the civil court's interlocutory order.

Outcome

The Division Bench partly allowed W.A. No. 1138 of 2026. The finding that the Kerala State Minority Commission lacks jurisdiction to pass orders in the nature of Ext. P4 was upheld without modification. The direction in the Single Judge's judgment requiring the statutory authorities to restore Moideenkutty to possession was deleted.

In place of that direction, the Bench ordered that the parties be restored to their status quo ante — that is, to the position they were in immediately before the date of the Single Judge's judgment. The Bench made clear that it had not determined the rights of either party and that both were free to raise all contentions before the civil court in O.S. No. 118/2026, pending before the District Judge, Manjeri. No costs were awarded.