The SC/ST Commission has no adjudicatory jurisdiction over immovable-property disputes.

Respondent No. 2’s land, originally granted in 1977 and sold in 1988, was resumed under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (“PTCL Act”) and restored to him.

He later sold the land to the petitioner in 2014 after obtaining State permission. Subsequent proceedings concerning that sale and the permission resulted in orders by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, which were challenged in writ petitions before the High Court.

While those petitions were pending, respondent No. 2 complained to the Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (“Commission”), alleging, among other things, fraud and destruction of crops. The Commission issued the petitioner a summons dated 2 August 2024 seeking information about the land purchase.

The petitioner challenged the summons under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the Commission could entertain respondent No. 2’s complaint and issue summons in a dispute concerning rights in immovable property, when related proceedings were pending before the courts and revenue authorities.

Whether respondent No. 2’s complaint to the Commission was maintainable in the circumstances of the case.

The Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 confers an advisory and recommendatory role on the Commission; it does not empower it to adjudicate disputes or determine rights in immovable property.

The Court relied on The Prl. Secretary to Govt. v. Smt. Pavithra, W.P. No. 6885/2025, decided 7 August 2026, which held that the Commission cannot adjudicate title or other disputed property questions and may not issue binding directions on them.

It also referred to M.B. Siddalingaswamy v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 4968, and the Supreme Court decisions in All India Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 606, and Collector v. Ajit Jogi, (2011) 10 SCC 357, in support of the Commission’s lack of adjudicatory authority.

Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act formed part of the background to the parties’ land proceedings.

The complaint itself disclosed related proceedings under the PTCL Act, a civil suit and pending writ petitions concerning the land and the permission to sell it. The Commission was therefore expected to examine the relevant proceedings and orders before taking cognizance and issuing a summons.

The Court found that respondent No. 2 had approached the Commission while the underlying disputes were being adjudicated, and that the Commission’s action could not be sustained in those circumstances.

Applying the principle that the Commission has no power to adjudicate property disputes, the Court held that the proceedings initiated on the complaint were unwarranted.

It also suggested that the Commission establish a screening mechanism to assess its jurisdiction before issuing summons or notices.