High Court · 2025

W.P.No.32679 of 2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 18.11.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHandTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVELW.P.No.32679 of 2022and W.M.P.No.33058 of 20221.The Commissioner Greater Chennai CorporationRippon BuildingChennai 600 0032.H.MuruganZonal OfficerZone III Greater Chennai CorporationChennai... Petitioners Vs.1.State Human Rights CommissionRep. By its RegistrarNo.143, P.S.Kumarasami Raja StreetChennai2.P.Gladson1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32679 of 20223.R.SathyendrarajTahsildarMadhavaram TalukChennai ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the record of 1st respondent in S.H.R.C. Case No.9511 of 2020 dated 30.09.2022 and quash the same as being passed without jurisdiction and in violation of Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.For Petitioners : Mr.S.T.Bharath Gowtham for M/s.K.Aswini DeviFor Respondent: Mr.Arun Anbumani – R1 Mr.K.Selvakumar – R2 Mr.G.Ameedius Government Advocate - R3ORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.andR.SAKTHIVEL, J.The second respondent / complainant had originally given a complaint before the Chennai Corporation, alleging that a temple was illegally constructed 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32679 of 2022in the month of March 2018, in Survey No.14/2A1A1A1A1A of Kathirvedu Village, Madhavaram Taluk, Chennai District. Later, on the undertaking given by the persons responsible for such construction that there will not be any further development of the temple, the complaint was withdrawn. Thereafter, when there was further development of the construction of the temple in the month of March 2020, he had given another complaint on 12.10.2020 to the State Human Rights Commission (Commission) alleging that his rights have been violated. The Commission, vide its order passed in S.H.R.C.No.9511 of 2020 dated 30.09.2022, gave recommendations to the Government to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh as compensation to the complainant, with a further direction to comply with the request of the complainant within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the recommendation order. This order of recommendation is put under challenge before this Court.2.The learned counsel for the petitioners, who is the Commissioner of Greater Chennai Corporation and Zonal Officer of Greater Chennai Corporation submitted that the complaint itself is barred by limitation in view of Section 36 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32679 of 2022(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. According to him, since the construction of the temple was commenced in the month of March 2018, and the complaint was filed in 2020, the same cannot be maintainable. It is his further submission that pending the proceeding before the Commission, the concerned Tahsildar had conducted a survey of the subject land and found that though the said land has been used as a road, the property situated in Survey No.14 / 2A1A1A1A1A is a patta land, standing in the name of four private individuals. By placing reliance on this document, as well as the counter affidavit filed by the concerned Tahsildar before the Commission, he submitted that when the subject land is not a public land, there is no violation of human rights. 3.Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent / complainant refers to the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation and submitted that the pursuant to the second respondent's complaint, the Corporation has also initiated action for removal of the encroachments, since it was a public road, and therefore, the encroachment itself amounts to violation of his constitutional rights and hence the complaint was maintainable. Insofar as the limitation is 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32679 of 2022concerned, he would submit that the original construction as well as the subsequent development is a continuing cause of action, and therefore, the limitation of one year period under Section 36(2) of the Act will have no applicability, since the development of the construction in the month of March 2020.4.Insofar as the ground of limitation is concerned, though Section 36(2) of the Act prohibits the State Commission from enquiring into any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the Act constituting violation of Human rights is alleged to have been committed. It is seen that after the original complaint was not pressed by the complainant, on the ground that there will not be further development of the temple, it appears that further development had commenced in the month of March 2020, which had prompted him to prefer the complaint before the Commission. 5.The cause of action in the second complaint is with regard to further development of the temple, and therefore, the cause of action for filing the 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32679 of 2022complaint before the Commission, would commence from the month of March 2020 and hence the complaint is well within time. Thus, we are not inclined to accept the ground of limitation taken by the petitioners herein. 6.Insofar as the allegation of violation of human rights is concerned, it appears that based on the complaints, the Revenue Tahsildar had conducted a survey over the subject property and found the same to be a patta land. This factual position was also reiterated by the Revenue Tahsildar in the counter affidavit filed before the Commission. Though, the complainant now raises an objection that the construction was not in a private property but in a public road, there are no materials either before the State Commission or before this Court to substantiate his claim. 7.It is needless to point out that the Commission will also not be empowered to adjudicate over the title of a property in which, human rights violation is alleged to have arisen. This apart, Rule 9 of the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu Procedure Regulations, 1999, sets forth the 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32679 of 2022circumstances under which the Commission may not ordinarily entertain the complaint, which reads as follows:9.Complaints not ordinarily entertainable. - The Commission may dismiss in limini complaints of the following nature:-(a)Vague, anonymous or pseudonymous or illegible trivial or frivolous;(b)Barred under Section 36(1) of the Act;(c)Barred under Section 36(2) of the Act;(d)Relates to civil dispute, such as property rights, contractual obligations;(e)Relates to service matters or labour or industrial disputes;(f)Allegations do not make out any specific violation of human rights;(g)Matter is sub judice before a Court or Tribunal;(h)Matter is covered by a judicial verdict or decision of the Commission;(i)Where copy of the complaint addressed to some other authority is received by the Commission;(j)Matter is outside the purview of the Commission.7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32679 of 2022As per clause 9(d), complaints which relate to civil dispute such as property rights, etc. cannot be entertained by the Commission and requires to be dismissed in limine.8.When the Revenue authorities themselves have asserted that the subject land is a patta land, which claim is opposed by the second respondent / complainant, adjudication of title over the property cannot be a subject matter for the Commission and it is for the aggrieved party to redress his grievances before the concerned Civil Court. Thus, in the light of the specific bar under Rule 9 (d), we are of the view that the Commission ought not to have entertained the complaint at all.9.In light of the above observations and findings, the order passed by the State Human Rights Commission in S.H.R.C. Case No.9511 of 2020, dated 30.09.2022, does not withstand legal scrutiny and hence the same is set aside. 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32679 of 202210.In the result, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.[M.S.R, J.] [R.S.V, J.] 18.11.2025 (2/2)kasIndex: Yes / NoNeutral CitationSpeaking / Non SpeakingM.S.RAMESH, J.andR.SAKTHIVEL, J.kasTo.9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32679 of 20221.The RegistrarState Human Rights CommissionNo.143, P.S.Kumarasami Raja StreetChennaiW.P.No.32679 of 2022and W.M.P.No.33058 of 202218.11.202510/10