IMPORTANT POINT
The Act does not provide jurisdiction for authorities to address complaints against private individuals, limiting their role to disputes involving legal heirs and relatives.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri Hari Om Sharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ambrish Shukla, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents and perused the records.

2. The instant writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus commanding and directing the District Magistrate, Prayagraj to take appropriate action on the application of the petitioner dated 27.9.2023 as well as reminder dated 15.12.2023 under the Uttar Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 2014') within stipulated period.

3. The petitioner is old woman, aged about 62 years, and is fully protected under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2007') read with the Rules, 2014. She purchased a Plot No. 331, area 249 hectares, situated in Dabhaon, Pargana Arail, Tehsil Karchhana, District Allahabad, through a registered sale-deed dated 5.3.2022. Subsequently, the petitioner's name has been mutated in the revenue record/khatauni in respect of property in dispute. The petitioner, being a bona fide purchaser of the said property, is in continuous possession. Subsequent to her purchase, one Bhoomafia Sushil Kumar Srivastava, who is a property dealer, in collusion with local police is trying to grab the said land of the petitioner. When she made an application/complaint on 27.9.2023 for redressing her grievance before the respondent No. 2, no action has been initiated and the petitioner has made a reminder through registered post on 15.12.2023. Despite her repeated requests, the second respondent has not initiated any action against the private respondent under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner, left with no option, has filed the present petition.

4. Based on the above pleadings, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the identical situation, this Court has passed the orders in Writ C No. 9417 of 2023, dated 24.3.2023 and Writ-C No. 29663 of 2023, dated 18.9.2023. The petitioner, being a senior citizen, aged about more than 62 years, is fully protected under the Act, 2007 read with the Rules, 2014.

5. According to Rule 21(2)(i) and Rule 22(2) of the Rules 2014, the respondent No. 2 is duty bound to protect the life and property of the petitioner but the respondent No. 2 had failed to initiate action against the private respondent based on the complaint made by the petitioner. Hence, he requested for a direction to the respondent No. 2 to initiate action against the respondent No. 7 as per the provisions of the Act, 2007 and the Rules, 2014.

6. Reply to the above said contentions, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has taken an objection with regard to the maintainability of the complaint made by the petitioner under the Act, 2007. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has further brought to the notice of the Court that the complaint made by the petitioner on 27.9.2023 is against a private person and the contents of the said complaint cannot be adjudicated by the authorities as per the provisions of the Act, 2007. For better appreciation, the same is extracted below :

7. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has further submitted that the averments of the above paragraphs would not attract the provisions of the Act, 2007. Here, the petitioner has made a complaint against a private person who is a land graber/land dealer, and is purely a private dispute. Hence, the authority has no power to entertain the complaint under the provisions of the Act, 2007 and the Act, 2007 does not provide to deal with the complaint against a private person.

8. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel further submits that the Act clearly mandates the authorities/tribunal to entertain the complaint made under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, 2007 except that there is no provision in the Act, 2007 to initiate action against a private person. Hence, t