IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Vikram D. Chauhan, JJ.
Bipraji Singh - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of U.P. And 4 Others - Respondent
WRIT - C No. - 26608 of 2021
Decided On : 16-12-2021
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Sections 9, sub-section (1) of Section 5, 23(1), 32 and 15 - Uttar Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014 - Rule 21 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 195 and Chapter XXVI - Measures for publicity, awareness - Seeking eviction - Maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens - Petitioner claims to be a widow lady having no source of protection of life and liberty and, as such, has moved an application under the Uttar Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014 - Land of petitioner and to evict private respondent no.5 from the land in question - Application filed by petitioner before District Magistrate, Azamgarh is filed by petitioner as Annexure 1 to the writ petition - District Magistrate would demonstrate that it is case of petitioner that she is residing at Mumbai along with her family and is permanent resident of village in which land in question is situated - Petitioner being respondent no 5 has illegally taken possession of land of petitioner adjoining residence of petitioner in village and post - karia gopalpur.
Finding of the Court:
Writ petition it has not been stated/disclosed as to date when the land in question was encroached upon by private respondent and when the wall was constructed - Application that the petitioner is living at Mumbai and in her absence, neighbour/private respondent has occupied land in question - Boundary on land in question and, as such, there prima facie exists a dispute, which is required to be considered and decided by court of competent jurisdiction and District Magistrate in exercise of Rule 21 - Respect of title and ownership of land in question and aforesaid would require evidence to be led by parties before court of competent jurisdiction - Encroachment over petitioners adjoining land and handover possession in favour of the petitioner - factual foundation with regard to right, title or interest of the petitioner in the property in question, in writ petition.
Result : Writ petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Vikram D. Chauhan, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the District Magistrate, Azamgarh to demolish the illegal encroachment made over the petitioner’s adjoining land and hand over the possession in favour of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner claims to be a widow lady having no source of protection of life and liberty and, as such, has moved an application under the Uttar Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014, to the District Magistrate, Azamgarh, to take action in respect of the land of the petitioner and to evict the private respondent no.5 from the land in question. The application filed by the petitioner before the District Magistrate, Azamgarh is filed by the petitioner as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. A bare perusal of the above-mentioned application of the petitioner before the District Magistrate would demonstrate that it is the case of the petitioner that she is residing at Mumbai along with her family and is permanent resident of the village in which the land in question is situated. It is also stated by the petitioner that during the absence of the petitioner from the village, the neighbour of the petitioner being respondent no 5 has illegally taken possession of the land of the petitioner adjoining the residence of the petitioner in the village and post– karia gopalpur, Police Station–Devgaon, District– Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondent-State.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has moved an application before the District Magistrate, seeking eviction of private respondent no.5 from the land adjoining the residence of petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner is living with her family at Mumbai and during her absence, neighbour has taken possession over the land adjoining the residence of petitioner. It is submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner that The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to “Act of 2007”) has been enacted by the legislature providing for welfare & protection to the senior citizens and parents. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that under the aforesaid Act of 2007, the Uttar Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to “Rules of 2014”) has been framed and under Rule 21 of the Rules of 2014, the District Magistrate is enjoined with the duty to ensure that the life and property of senior citizens of the district is protected and they are able to live with security and dignity. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that under Rule 22 of the Rules of 2014, an action plan for the protection of life and property of senior citizen has been envisaged and on the aforesaid basis, petitioner seeks direction for ejection of the private respondent from the land in question.
5. Before considering the claim of the petitioner arising out of the present writ petition, it is necessary that the scheme of the Act of 2007 be examined.
6. The Act of 2007 is enacted with the object to provide more effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens guaranteed and recognised under the Constitution and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The statement, objects and reasons of the aforesaid Bill is as under :-
Point of Law : Power vested in the District Magistrate vide Rule 21 does not extend to potential claims in respect of property where title, interest or possession needs determination/adjudication.
The Act does not provide jurisdiction for authorities to address complaints against private individuals, limiting their role to disputes involving legal heirs and relatives.
Rule 20 gives indication that being a piece of welfare legislation, it adjures administration to avert threat of life and property of senior citizens.
Senior citizens can initiate eviction proceedings against their children under the Act, but such actions must consider existing civil suits and cannot be absolute.
The court clarified that the authorities under the 2007 Act do not have the power to order eviction, but are limited to granting maintenance and addressing fraudulent property transfers.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.