JUDGMENT : S.MANIKUMAR, J. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.08.2019 made by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission in HRMP No.3697/11/7/2019/KTM, directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kottayam, 6th respondent, and Secretary, Thrickodithanam Grama Panchayath, 4th respondent, on the basis of the report submitted by the Village Officer, to resolve the grievance made in the complaint of the 1st respondent herein, instant writ petition is filed to quash the said order Ext.P4. 2. Writ petitioner has contended that he is in absolute possession and enjoyment of an extent of 25 Ares 60 Sq.Mtrs in Re-Survey Nos.577/6 and 577/8 in Block No.8 in Thrickodithanam Village in Changanacherry Taluk. One of the main grounds urged by the writ petitioner is that, the impugned order Ext.P4 has been passed without providing an opportunity of hearing. He was not given opportunity to submit objections to Ext.P3 report submitted by the Village Administrative Officer. Petitioner has further contended that the issue involved, relates to a pathway, which is essentially a civil dispute and, therefore, the Human Rights Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere in the said dispute and issue any direction to the 6th respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, Kottayam and Secretary, Thrickodithanam Grama Panchayath. 3. Responding to the above and referring to Section 16 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, Mr. S. Subash Chand, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, submitted that right of the 1st respondent to her property has been affected and hence, Human Rights Commission has jurisdiction to interfere. Referring to Ext.P4 order of the Human Rights Commission, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent further submitted that the Commission has not concluded the rights of the parties, but only directed the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Secretary, Thrickodithanam Grama Panchayath to take necessary action on the basis of the report of the Village Officer. He also submitted that it is always open to the writ petitioner to place all tenable grounds before the above authorities for any further grievance. For the above reasons, he prayed to sustain Ext.P4 order of the Human Rights Commission dated 13.8.2019. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 reads as follows: “2. For the above reasons, he prayed to sustain Ext.P4 order of the Human Rights Commission dated 13.8.2019. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 reads as follows: “2. Definitions.-(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.- (a) xx xxxxx (b) xx xxxxx (c) xx xxxxx (d) “human rights” means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India.” 6. A Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.1314 of 2016 dated 23.07.2019, observed thus: “12. Section 12 of the Act deals with the functions of the National Human Rights Commission. By virtue of Section 29 of the Act, the provisions contained in Section 12 of the Act are applicable to State Human Rights Commission also. Section 12(a) of the Act provides that the Commission shall inquire, suo motu or on a petition presented to it by a victim or any person on his behalf, or on a direction or order of any court into complaint of -(i) violation of human rights or abetment thereof or (ii) negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant. Section 12(b) of the Act provides that the Commission shall intervene in any proceeding involving any allegation of violation of human rights pending before a court with the approval of such court. Section 12(d) of the Act states that the Commission shall review the safeguards provided by or under the Constitution or any law for the time being in force for the protection of human rights and recommend measures for their effective implementation. Section 12(j) of the Act states that the Commission shall perform such other functions as it may consider necessary for the promotion of human rights. 13. Section 18(a)(iii) of the Act provides that, where the inquiry discloses the commission of violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights or abetment thereof by a public servant, it may recommend to the concerned Government or authority to take such further action as it may think fit. 13. Section 18(a)(iii) of the Act provides that, where the inquiry discloses the commission of violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights or abetment thereof by a public servant, it may recommend to the concerned Government or authority to take such further action as it may think fit. Section 18(e) of the Act provides that the commission shall send a copy of its inquiry report together with its recommendations to the concerned Government or authority and the concerned Government or authority shall, within a period of one month or such further time as the Commission may allow, forward its comments on the report, including the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon to the Commission.” 7. In Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab reported in (1999) 2 SCC 131 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: “14. The concept of sui generis is applied quite often with reference to resolution of disputes in the context of international law. When the conventions formulated by compacting nations do not cover any area territorially or any subject topically, then the body to which such power to arbiter is entrusted acts sui generis, that is, on its own and not under any law. 17. The Commission is also a body sui juris created under an Act made by Parliament for examining and investigating the questions and complaints relating to violation of human rights, as also the negligence on the part of any public servant in preventing such violations.” 8. In Doundial v. Union of India reported in AIR 2004 SC 1272 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: “14. We cannot endorse the view of the Commission. The Commission which is an 'unique expert body' is, no doubt, entrusted with a very important function of protecting the human rights, but, it is needless to point out that the Commission has no unlimited jurisdiction nor does it exercise plenary powers in derogation of the statutory limitations. The Commission, which is the creature of statute, is bound by its provisions. Its duties and functions are defined and circumscribed by the Act. The Commission, which is the creature of statute, is bound by its provisions. Its duties and functions are defined and circumscribed by the Act. Of course, as any other statutory functionary, it undoubtedly has incidental or ancillary powers to effectively exercise its jurisdiction in respect of the powers confided to it but the Commission should necessarily act within the parameters prescribed by the Act creating it and the confines of jurisdiction vested in it by the Act. The Commission is one of the fora which can redress the grievances arising out of the violations of human rights. Even if it is not in a position to take up the enquiry and to afford redressal on account of certain statutory fetters or handicaps, the aggrieved persons are not without other remedies. The assumption underlying the observation in the concluding passage extracted above proceeds on an incorrect premise that the person wronged by violation of human rights would be left without remedy if the Commission does not take up the matter.” 9. In G.Manikyamma and Others v. Roudri Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Others reported in (2014) 15 SCC 197 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: “41. There is nothing on record before us to establish that the land in question was duly taken possession by the Government under the provisions of the Act. Until possession is duly taken as explained above, property still remains private property notwithstanding the determination that such property is ' land in excess of the ceiling limit' under the Act. The persons in possession of such property, whatever be the nature of their possession -whether they are encroachers or persons such as the first respondent Society -cannot be evicted by force. All this requires a thorough examination of the respective rights of the various parties and the authority of the State to deal with the property in question. 42. The Human Rights Commission, in our view, would not be competent forum for the examination of the above-mentioned issues. Both the first respondent Society as well as the encroachers, in our view, wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission instead of pursuing the appropriate remedies available to them in law, and the Human Rights Commission was too willing to exercise authority without any jurisdiction. Both the first respondent Society as well as the encroachers, in our view, wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission instead of pursuing the appropriate remedies available to them in law, and the Human Rights Commission was too willing to exercise authority without any jurisdiction. We are also of the opinion that the High Court resorted to more of a mediation activity than the determination of the legal issues involved in the case. 43. In our opinion, the Human Rights Commission does not have any jurisdiction to deal with the disputed questions of title and possession of the property.” 10. Regulation 17 of the Kerala Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 2001, which deals with maintainability of complaints before the Commission states thus: “17. Complaints not ordinarily maintainable.-The Commission may dismiss in limine complaints of the following nature: (a) Illegible; (b) vague, anonymous or pseudonymous; (c) trivial or frivolous; (d) barred under sub-section (1) or (2) of section 36 of the Act; (e) allegations do not disclose involvement of any public servant; (f) issue raised relates to civil disputes, service matters, labour or industrial dispute; (g) allegations do not raise any violation of human rights; (h) If the mater raised is sub-judice before a Court or Tribunal; (I) the matter is covered by a Judicial verdict/decision of the National Commission or a State Commission; (j) Where the complaint is only a copy of the petition addressed to some other authority. (k) Where the petition is not signed or where the original petition is not sent to the Commission; (l) Where the matter raised is outside the purview of the Commission or on any other ground.” 11. Chapter III, Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, deals with functions of the Commission, which states clearly that the Commission may take complaints of the nature of violation of human rights or abatement thereof. Section 12 reads thus: “CHAPTER III FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF THE COMMISSION 12. Chapter III, Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, deals with functions of the Commission, which states clearly that the Commission may take complaints of the nature of violation of human rights or abatement thereof. Section 12 reads thus: “CHAPTER III FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF THE COMMISSION 12. Functions of the Commission:-The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely:- (a) inquire, suo motu or on a petition presented to it by a victim or any person on his behalf or on a direction or order of any court, into complaint of (I) violation of human rights or abetment thereof; or (ii) negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant; (b) intervene in any proceeding involving any allegation of violation of human rights pending before a court with the approval of such court; (c) visit, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any jail or other institution under the control of the State Government, where persons are detained or lodged for purposes of treatment, reformation or protection, for the study of the living conditions of the inmates thereof and make recommendations thereon to the Government: (d) review the safeguards provided under the Constitution or any law for the time being in force for the protection of human rights and recommend measures for their effective implementation; (e) review the factors, including acts of terrorism that inhibit the enjoyment of human rights and recommend appropriate remedial measures; (f) study treaties and other international instruments on human rights and make recommendations for their effective implementation; (g) undertake and promote research in the field of human rights; (h) spread human rights literacy among various sections of society and promote awareness of the safeguards available for the protection of these rights through publications, the media, seminars and other available means; (I) encourage the efforts of non-governmental organisations and institutions working in the field of human rights; (j) such other functions as it may consider necessary for the protection of human rights.” 12. As per Regulation 17(f) of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulation, 2001, Commission may dismiss the in limine, complaints where the issues raised relate to civil disputes, service matters, labour or industrial disputes. 13. As per Regulation 17(f) of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulation, 2001, Commission may dismiss the in limine, complaints where the issues raised relate to civil disputes, service matters, labour or industrial disputes. 13. Complaint before the Human Rights Commission, which is primarily relating to a pathway to the house of the complainant, being a civil dispute, the same is not maintainable and the Kerala State Human Rights Commission ought to have dismissed the complaint in limine. 14. Though Mr. S. Subash Chand, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, contended that right to life, liberty, equality and dignity included the right to property, there is a specific exclusion in entertaining a complaint, where issue raised relates to civil dispute. Legislature has explicitly omitted civil disputes. Ext.P4 has been passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. Thus, there is violation of principles of natural justice. 15. In the light of the above, order dated 13.08.2019 in HRMP No.3697/11/7/2019/KTM State Human Rights Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (Ext.P4) is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we set aside the order. This writ petition is allowed.