The Jharkhand High Court has held that the State Disability Commissioner has no jurisdiction to adjudicate private land disputes or determine the rights, title or interest of parties over immovable property. The Court ruled that while the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 empowers the Commissioner to protect the statutory rights of persons with disabilities, it does not authorize the office to decide civil disputes relating to land.
Background of the Case
The judgment arose from two connected writ petitions concerning a land dispute in Village Dholiya, Chatra district. In W.P.(C) No. 451 of 2020, Krit Yadav and two others challenged Letter No. 388 dated June 28, 2019 issued by the State Disability Commissioner, Jharkhand. They argued that the Commissioner had exceeded his jurisdiction by examining the competing claims over the disputed land, recording findings in favour of Narendra Prasad Singh and directing the authorities to facilitate agricultural operations on the land.
Narendra Prasad Singh, who is a person with benchmark disability, had approached the State Disability Commissioner alleging that certain villagers were attempting to grab his land and prevent him from cultivating it. After the Commissioner issued directions, Singh filed W.P.(C) No. 915 of 2020, seeking action against persons allegedly obstructing officials from implementing those directions.
Court's Observation
Justice Ananda Sen examined the scheme of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and observed that the legislation is intended to ensure equality, dignity, non-discrimination and access to justice for persons with disabilities. The powers conferred upon the State Commissioner are meant to safeguard these statutory rights and to inquire into complaints relating to their deprivation.
The Court found that the Commissioner had gone beyond these statutory functions by examining rival claims over the disputed property and issuing directions based on those findings.
The bench observed,
"The State Disability Commissioner has no power to enter into and adjudicate land dispute between the parties and by doing so he has completely travelled beyond his jurisdiction."
Relying on State Bank of Patiala v. Vinesh Kumar Bhasin, the Court held that although the Commissioner enjoys certain procedural powers of a civil court for conducting inquiries, those powers do not include deciding civil disputes or granting relief concerning property rights.
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha and Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, reiterating that questions relating to title over immovable property can only be decided by a competent civil court and that entries in revenue records do not confer ownership.
Importantly, the High Court noted that although Narendra Prasad Singh is a person with disability, the controversy before the Commissioner was a private land dispute having no connection with his disability. The Court observed that it was not a case where he had been denied access to justice because of his disability and that he could have approached the competent civil court instead of the State Disability Commissioner.
Decision
The High Court allowed W.P.(C) No. 451 of 2020 and set aside Letter No. 388 dated June 28, 2019 issued by the State Disability Commissioner, Jharkhand. Consequently, W.P.(C) No. 915 of 2020 filed by Narendra Prasad Singh was dismissed.
The Court clarified that it had not adjudicated the ownership of the disputed property and left it open to both parties to approach the competent civil court for declaration of their rights, title and interest or for appropriate relief, including permanent injunction, if so advised. Pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.
Case Details:
Case Title: Krit Yadav & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (Connected with W.P.(C) No. 915 of 2020)
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 451 of 2020 (With W.P.(C) No. 915 of 2020)
Judge: Justice Ananda Sen
Decision Date: 29 June 2026
-300x169.webp)
