The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, being a beneficial social welfare legislation, confers jurisdiction upon Tribunals to order the eviction of children or relatives from a senior citizen's self-acquired property to ensure their security and dignity, even amidst competing claims under the Domestic Violence Act.

ORDER :

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed to issue writ of certiorari claiming the following relief:

a. Calling for records in PGRS Petition in KRI202501279024, dated 27-01-2025 of the Respondent No. 1/ District Collector, Appellate Tribunal, Krishna District ;

b. Declare the Endorsement in R.C.C 552/2024, dated 03-01-2025 issued by Respondent No.2/Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada, confirmed by Respondent No.1/District Collector in Procs. Rc.No. AT(Krishna)/44/2025, dated -04-2025 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and Andhra Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules ;

c. Set aside or quash the Endorsement in R.C.C 552/2024, dated 03-01-2025 issued by Respondent No.2/Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada, confirmed by Respondent No.1/District Collector in Procs.Rc.No. AT(Krishna)/44/2025, dated -04-2025, issued by the District Collector, Appellate Tribunal, Krishna District in PGRS Petition in KRI202501279024, dated 27-01-2025 ;

Facts of the case

2. The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of a residential house bearing Door No. 3-172-2 at Mareeduvari Street, Gudivada, having purchased the site under a registered sale deed dated 04.05.2005 and constructed a house thereon. Being a senior citizen, he filed an application under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 seeking protection of his property and restoration of possession under Section 23 of the Act and Rules, 2011 made thereunder. The petitioner has two daughters and one son (Respondent No. 3) and has settled properties in their favour. He alleges that on 01.03.2018, Respondent No. 4 and her relatives coerced him to execute a conveyance deed in her favour, which he refused. Shortly thereafter, on 08.03.2018, he suffered a paralytic stroke and, during his treatment, was again threatened to execute such deed. Upon discharge, he found that, Respondent No. 4 is in illegal occupation of the entire house, which is forcing him to reside in a rented premises. He further alleges that Respondent No. 4 lodged a criminal case against him and continued to exert pressure. The petitioner, aged above 65 years and suffering from multiple ailments, claims his need to reside in his own house. Respondent No.3, after calling for a police report, closed the application on 03.01.2025. Respondent No.2 being the appellate authority also confirmed the orders of Respondent No.3 on 28.04.2025 treating the matter as a family dispute beyond the scope of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Submissions of counsel for the petitioner

3. Ms. Nikitha, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, being a senior citizen suffering from multiple age-related ailments, is entitled to protection of life under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. It is submitted that Respondent No. 4 who is the son of the petitioner herein is in unauthorized occupation of the petitioner’s self-acquired property without any legal right or interest. It is further contended that the Tribunal failed to discharge its statutory obligation in adjudicating the application on merits and by closing the same without passing a reasoned order. Such an action is contrary to the object, and scheme of the Act. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned endorsement is a non-speaking order, devoid of reasons\, merits and violates settled legal principles which mandates that all quasi-judicial authorities must pass reasoned orders. It is argued that the Tribunal erred in treating the dispute as a mere “family dispute” and declining its jurisdiction is contrary to the scheme of the Act, whereas the genesis of the dispute arises from coercion and illegal attempts to compel the petitioner to execute a conveyance deed