Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a dispute over vehicular access to private properties at Malpe, Pernem, Goa. The petitioner was Bhagwati Ravalnath Devasthan Committee, a Devasthan under the Devasthan Regulations, owning property near Mulvir Temple. Respondents No.5 and 6 were individuals residing nearby who sought vehicular access to their ancestral properties. Initially, the respondents complained to the Sarpanch, Village Panchayat of Virnoda on 3 September 2012, requesting an access road to their private property, sending copies to several authorities including the Goa Human Rights Commission. Later, on 3 January 2013, they filed a further complaint with the Chairman of the Goa Human Rights Commission, stating that a public road existed under the Public Works Department, that the existing government road was wide enough, and that the Devasthan had blocked access. The GHRC took cognizance of the complaint, issued notices to the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 4, conducted an inquiry with a site inspection, and concluded that there were five steps in the Devasthan property. It recommended that these steps, which were allegedly unauthorized, be demolished, leaving it to the PWD's discretion whether part or all should be demolished, to provide vehicular access to the complainants' houses without allowing vehicles up to the temple. The petitioner challenged this order dated 4 June 2014 by writ petition primarily on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The legal issue concerned whether the Goa Human Rights Commission had jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and Regulation 9 of the Goa Human Rights Commission Regulations to entertain complaints about denial of vehicular access through private property, or whether the dispute was a purely civil property dispute. The petitioner argued that providing vehicular access through Devasthan property was a purely civil dispute concerning property rights and that the GHRC lacked jurisdiction. The respondents argued that the complaint related to a public road blocked by the Devasthan for several years and that access to a road is a basic necessity linked to health, education, transport, and emergencies. The High Court perused both complaints and noted that the respondents alleged no vehicle-passable road connecting the existing public roads to their personal properties, but that their complaint was not that there was no access at all. The court considered the GHRC's inquiry and recommendations and the submissions on jurisdiction. The available record does not contain the final operative order of the High Court.
Headnote
A) Human Rights - Jurisdiction of Goa Human Rights Commission - Vehicular Access Dispute - Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, Section 12; Goa Human Rights Commission Regulations, Regulation 9 - The petitioner Devasthan challenged the Goa Human Rights Commission's order dated 4 June 2014 which recommended demolition of five steps on Devasthan property to provide vehicular access to respondents' properties. The petitioner contended that the GHRC lacked jurisdiction to entertain complaints regarding denial of vehicular access as it was a purely civil dispute concerning property rights. Respondents contended that the complaint related to a public road blocked by the Devasthan and that the Commission had jurisdiction. The High Court examined the complaints dated 3 September 2012 and 3 January 2013 and the GHRC's inquiry and recommendations. (Paras 3, 7-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Goa Human Rights Commission had jurisdiction to entertain complaints by Respondents No.5 and 6 about denial of vehicular access through the Petitioner Devasthan's property, or whether the dispute was a purely civil property dispute outside the Commission's powers under Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and Regulation 9 of the Goa Human Rights Commission Regulations.
Law Points
- Goa Human Rights Commission has jurisdiction only over complaints of human rights violations under Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act
- 1993
- a purely civil property dispute regarding access rights does not fall within its jurisdiction
- the Commission cannot make recommendations for demolition of private property steps to provide vehicular access without statutory authority.
