Back
2026 Supreme(All) 1162
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, INDRAJEET SHUKLA, JJ.
Satish Chandra Gupta - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and 11 others - Respondents
WRIT – C No. -4998 of 2026
Decided On : 02-07-2026
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Dharmendra Kumar
For the Respondent: Abhishek Srivastava, C.S.C., Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot, Rajesh Mishra
The welfare legislation for older adults does not establish a special forum to adjudicate property title disputes. Jurisdiction is strictly limited to setting aside transfers only when a specific conditional obligation for providing basic maintenance is breached, as per the statutory provisions.
Headnote:(A) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Sections 21, 22, and 23 - Protection of life and property of senior citizens - Scope of jurisdiction - Whether statutory authorities have power to adjudicate title disputes or issue orders for eviction - Held, legislation is not intended to substitute regular civil courts for title adjudication - Jurisdiction is strictly limited to instances under section 23 involving transfers conditional upon maintenance - Absent such conditions, property disputes must be resolved in civil courts. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 15, 25, 27)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Exercise of - Alternative remedy - Where civil suits are pending regarding title and possession, writ courts refrain from adjudicating the validity of title documents when the statutory forum lacks the power to declare transfers void. (Paras 21, 27)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, identifying as an older adult, sought state intervention to invalidate property transfer documents and obtain police protection, alleging that the documents were forged and asserting ownership of the premises.
Findings of Court:
The authorities under the legislation lack the jurisdiction to declare title deeds void or order evictions in the absence of a specific grievance involving the non-fulfillment of basic maintenance conditions attached to a property transfer as prescribed in the statute.
Issues: Whether statutory authorities under the designated welfare legislation have the power to adjudicate the validity of title deeds and order eviction in property disputes initiated by senior citizens.
Ratio Decidendi: The legislation provides a limited jurisdiction, exclusively under section 23, for setting aside property transfers. Since the statutory framework does not confer powers akin to civil courts for complex title disputes, such matters must be adjudicated through appropriate civil forums.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Delivered by Indrajeet Shukla, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Alok Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 to 6, Mr. Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.7 to 10 and Mr. Rajesh Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.11 and 12.
2. The petitioner, who claims himself to be senior citizen has approached this Court with following main reliefs:-
“1. Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police and Sub-Divisional Magistrate) to forthwith provide round-the-clock police protection to the petitioner and his property House No. 373, Kasba Rath, District Hamirpur.
2. Issue a writ of Prohibition restraining Respondent Nos. 6 to 12 from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the petitioner's peaceful possession.
3. Declare that the forged Will and registration of sale deed dated 17.11.2025 are prima facie void, and direct the competent authority to take time-bound legal action in accordance with law.
4. Direct a time-bound inquiry (within 15 days) into the failure of the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Circle Officer and Station House Officer in discharging statutory duties under Section 22 of the Act, 2007.
5. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the State Level Committee constituted under Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to take immediate cognizance of the petitioner's grievance; Exercise supervisory powers over the District Level Committee and district authorities; Issue binding protective directions for safeguarding the petitioner's life and property; and File a personal compliance affidavit before this Hon'ble Court within a fixed time frame non-action on representations dated 13.10.2025 and 14.11.2025, and 01.02.2026 failure to prevent creation of forged documents.
3. Shorn to unnecessary details the facts leading to instant writ petition can be summarized as under:-
The petitioner happens to be son of one Bhagwandas, who was owner of property described as house recorded in his name in the assessment register of Nagar Palika Parishad, Rath. A Will is said to have been executed by testator Bhagwandas alias Garibdas on 18.08.2004 in favour of private respondents and thereafter the beneficiaries of the Will executed two different sale-deeds on 17.11.2025, which have been brought on record by means of Annexures No.3 & 4 to this writ petition.
The petitioner pleads that he is the lawful owner and is in peaceful settled possession of house in question as such, he filed a representation addressed to the District Magistrate, Hamirpur seeking protection of his property under the mandate of Section 22 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (here-in-after shall be referred to as the “ the Act, 2007”).
4. The grievance as voiced by the petitioner in his representation is, that despite receipt of said representation, no action at the end of District Administration and Police Authorities including District Level Committee constituted under the Act was taken, resultantly execution of two sale-deeds on the same day, even the reminder representation filed on 14.11.2025 could not activate the State machinery. The petitioner claims these sale-deeds to be forged by raising a plea that the sale-deeds so executed are without authority of law, as the Will, which is the foundation of these two sale-deeds for the purpose of flow of title, itself is forged document. Further submission is the executant of sale-deed had no title to convey, there exist no lawful chain of title and in this factual backdrop the property of petitioner ought to have been protected and the private respondents being third party ought to have been restrained from any sort of interference in property in question. The private respondents are alleged to be land grabbers and
