MARIYADAS Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.06.2016 passed by the State Human Rights Commission, Thiruvananthapuram in HRMP No.253/2016 (Ext.P7), directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoor, respondent No.1, to take steps under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure if the petitioners did not construct the retaining wall, and the consequential notice dated 06.12.2016 (Ext.P8) issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoor, instant writ petition is filed to quash the same.

(2.) Writ petitioners have contended that they are in absolute possession and enjoyment of an extent of 2.43 Ares of property in Survey No.165/5 of Omallur Village by virtue of gift deed No.2490/2013. One of the main grounds urged by the writ petitioners is that, the impugned order Exhibit-P7 has been passed by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission exceeding its powers vested under law. The issue involved, relates to a complaint made by the 4th respondent on 25.07.2015 before the Kerala Stater Human Rights Commission that the petitioners removed earth from the northern side of the Panchayat road, whereby the passage through the road has become difficult. The 4 th respondent has also filed a complaint before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoor on 13.10.2014. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer directed the Panchayat to restore the Panchayat road. Thereafter, petitioners received a notice from the Human Rights Commission stating to submit an objection to the complaint submitted by the 4th respondent before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission. Petitioners have contended that it is essentially a civil dispute and therefore, the State Human Rights Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere in the said dispute and issue any direction to the 1st respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoor.

(3.) Responding to the above and referring to Section 16 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, Sri.Peter Jose Christo, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that petitioners are responsible for the damage caused to the Tharayilapadi-Naduvathukavu Panchayat road by removing the earth unauthorisedly from the sides of the said road. They are also responsible to construct a retaining wall. The learned counsel further submitted that Panchayat cannot be mulcted with the responsibility to construct retaining wall to the said road. He further submitted that the pathway in issue lies on the southern side of the property and it is situated at a height of 4 metres above the property of the petitioners. For construction of his house, petitioner removed earth from the sides, which caused the weakening of the Panchayat road, which passes at a height of 4 metres above the property of the petitioner.