1. Petition under Article 227 seeking protection of property under Senior Citizens Act for a property dispute with unrelated parties. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(All) 479
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Magghu Ram - Appellant
Vs.
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Revenue Deptt. ) Lko. And Others - Respondent
WRIT - C No. - 1779 of 2026
Decided On : 09-03-2026
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Gauri Shankar Maurya
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Shobh Nath Pandey
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Gauri Shankar Maurya
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Shobh Nath Pandey
The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, does not empower authorities to adjudicate title or possession disputes of immovable property, particularly between unrelated parties, as such matters require regular civil/revenue proceedings rather than the Act's summary procedure.
Headnote:(A) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Sections 22 and 27 - U.P. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014 - Rule 21 - Protection of property of senior citizens - Scope of powers of District Magistrate - The object of the Act is to provide a mechanism for the protection of life and property of older persons, primarily in the context of neglect by relatives or children - Authorities under the Act are not empowered to adjudicate disputes relating to the title and possession of immovable properties, especially when the parties are not related to each other - Rival claims to ownership cannot be decided in a summary manner as contemplated under Section 8 of the Act (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13).
(B) Jurisdiction - Bar under Section 27 - The bar on Civil Court jurisdiction applies only to matters to which the provisions of the Act apply - Since the Act does not authorize authorities to adjudicate title and possession disputes, Section 27 does not bar the jurisdiction of Civil or Revenue Courts to decide such disputes (Para 18).
Facts of the case:
A petitioner purchased a portion of land from co-sharers and later sold a part of it. A dispute arose with another purchaser regarding the possession of a specific area of the land. The petitioner sought police protection and directions to the District Magistrate to protect his life and property under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Simultaneously, a partition order under the revenue code had been passed, and a revision was pending before a revisional authority.
Findings of Court:
The petition lacks merit. The welfare act for senior citizens is intended for maintenance and protection from relatives and is not a forum for resolving title disputes between unrelated parties. Such disputes require a detailed trial involving pleadings, evidence, and cross-examination, which is incompatible with the summary procedure prescribed under the Act.
Issues: Whether the District Magistrate can utilize the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to resolve a property dispute and protect the property of a senior citizen against an unrelated third party.
Ratio Decidendi: The scope of powers conferred upon the District Magistrate under Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 does not include the power to adjudicate disputes relating to the title and possession of immovable properties. Such disputes must be decided by competent Civil or Revenue Courts in regular suits. Consequently, the bar of jurisdiction under Section 27 does not apply to title disputes.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
constitutional law
-
writ jurisdiction
- article 227 (Para 2)
-
writ jurisdiction
- family law
- practice and procedure
- property law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner sought protection under Act; State argued dispute pending before revenue court and Act not applicable for unrelated parties. (Para 2 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. The Act is for maintenance from children/relatives and protects senior citizens' property, not for adjudicating rival title disputes. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
4. Authorities under Maintenance Act cannot adjudicate rival claims to ownership of immovable property between unrelated parties. (Para 13 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
5. Petition dismissed; pending revision to be decided on merits without being influenced by dismissal. (Para 20 )
6. Can the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act be used to resolve property disputes between unrelated parties?
No, the Act is intended for maintenance claims against children/relatives and for protection of property, not for deciding rival claims to title between strangers. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 16 , 17 )
7. Does Section 22 of the Maintenance Act empower the District Magistrate to adjudicate title disputes over immovable property?
No, Section 22 confers powers for implementing the Act, but does not include adjudicating rival claims to title and possession of immovable property. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 )
8. Does Section 27 of the Maintenance Act bar the jurisdiction of civil courts in property disputes?
No, the bar applies only to matters covered by the Act, not to disputes over title and possession of immovable property between unrelated parties. (Para 18 )
9. Are summary proceedings under the Maintenance Act suitable for deciding rival claims to immovable property?
No, summary procedure under Section 8 cannot decide such claims, which require pleadings, evidence, cross-examination, and a detailed judgment. (Para 13 )
JUDGMENT :
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Shri Gauri Shankar Maurya, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ashutosh Srivastava, the learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Shobh Nath Pandey, Advocate who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No.5, which is taken on record.
2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought issuance of a direction to the opposite party No.2-Collector/ District Magistrate, Ayodhya to protect the life and property of the petitioner bearing Plot No.102 Ka measuring 0.0740 hectare situated in Village and Post- Netwari Chaturpur, Pargana- Paschim Rath, Tehsil- Bikapur, Ayodhya under Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as Maintenance Act 2007) and Rule 21 of U.P. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the Maintenance Rules). The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding the authorities to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner for maintaining law and order on the spot.
3. It has inter alia been pleaded in the writ petition that Plot No.102 Ka measuring 0.0740 hectare situated in Village and Post- Netwari Chaturpur, Pargana- Paschim Rath, Tehsil- Bikapur, Ayodhya was recorded in the revenue records in the name of Radhey Shyam, Rajaram, Sitaram etc. as co sharers and Bhoomidhars with transferable rights. The petitioner - Magghu Ram and his wife Smt. Jaikala Devi had purchased a plot of land measuring 40 ft. X 40 ft. from the aforesaid Plot No.102 Ka through a registered saledeed dated 04.07.2005 executed by Sitaram and Rajaram, sons of Late Shankar. It is important to note that the petitioner himself has pleaded that Plot No.102 Ka was recorded in the names of "Radhey Shayam, Rajaram, Sitaram etc." and except Rajaram and Sitaram, the other co-tenure holders and co-sharers had not executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner and his wife.
4. It is stated that the petitioner and his wife executed a sale deed dated 04.03.2013 in favour of Phoolkala, wife of Ram Surat, in respect of a portion of their plot measuring 27 ft. X 40 ft. and the remaining area measuring 13 ft. X 40 ft. remained in possession of the petitioner. The opposite party No.6 Shri Chandrabhan Mishra has also purchased some portion of Plot No.102 Ka but the petitioner claims that the portion purchased by the opposite party No.6 is not adjacent to the property of the petitioner. As per the petitioner, the opposite party No.6 is trying to grab the area measuring 13 ft. X 40 ft. which forms a part of Plot No.102 Ka and which is in possession of the petitioner.
5. The petitioner filed an application dated 28.01.2026 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bikapur, Ayodhya requesting him to take action against the opposite party No.5 and 6 under Section 164 and 165 BNSS.
6. The petitioner has pleaded that the District Magistrate owes a duty to protect the property of the petitioner under Section 22 of the U.P. Maintenance Act, 2007 and Rule 21 of the Maintenance Rules. He has sought issuance of a direction to the Collector/District Magistrate, Ayodhya to protect the life and property of the petitioner under Section 22 of Maintenance Act.
7. On the basis of written instructions provided by SDM, Bikapur, Ayodhya, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the land bearing Gata No.102 Ka is a combined number and the names of the petitioner and the opposite party Nos.5 and 6 are recorded on different parts of the same Gata number. An order under Section 30 (2) of the U.P. Revenue Code has been passed for partition of the land. In this regard, a revision under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 bearing computerized No.C202504000000332 is pending before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and the next date fixed in revision is 10.04.2026.
8. Learned counsel for the pet
