IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13.05.2026 Ramkala ….Petitioner Versus District Magistrate-cum-District Collector, Sirsa, and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate, and Ms. B.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. J.S. Thind, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)

1. Vide instant writ petition, as cast under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the order dated 07.02.2022 (Annexure P-11), passed by the District Magistrate-cum-District Collector, Sirsa (respondent No.1).

2. At the outset, learned State counsel points out that the impugned order was rendered by an authority inherently lacking statutory jurisdiction and, therefore, is liable to be set aside, on this ground alone. He asserts that under the unequivocal scheme of the Act of 2007, an application preferred by a senior citizen seeking eviction of the private respondent (daughter-in-law), must be entertained and adjudicated exclusively by the three-member Maintenance Tribunal, and not by Appellate Tribunal straightway. In this regard, he refers to a notification No.1041-SW(4)-2020, dated 08.12.2020, issued by the Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Government of Haryana. In such a situation, the impugned order is vitiated by a jurisdictional error, having been rendered coram non judice, and is therefore liable to be set aside.

3. Further, even learned counsel for the petitioner joins hand with learned State counsel to submit that the application preferred by the senior citizen ought to have been adjudicated by the three-member Maintenance Tribunal presided over by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and not by the Appellate Tribunal.

4. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order 07.02.2022 (Annexure P-11) does not pass the test of legality, as it was passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction. Moreover, by usurping the adjudication of the application filed under the Act of 2007, the Appellate Tribunal has foreclosed the statutory right of appeal under Section 16 of the Act of 2007.

5. The statutory framework clearly demarcates the original and appellate jurisdictions. A conjoint reading of Sections 2(g), 7, and 16 of the Act of 2007, leaves no room for doubt that a senior citizen beseeching any relief under the Act (supra), must approach the Maintenance Tribunal, which alone is vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate such claim, in the first instance. Likewise, an appeal against the order of the Maintenance Tribunal lies exclusively before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 16:-

“2. Definitions- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires -

XX XX XX j. "Tribunal" means the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under section 7 XX XX XX

7. Constitution of Maintenance Tribunal

1. The State Government shall within a period of six months from the date of the commencement of this Act, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute for each Sub-division one or more Tribunals as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating and deciding upon the order for maintenance under section 5.

2. The Tribunal shall be presided over by an officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer of a State.

3. Where two or more Tribunals are constituted for any area, the State Government may, by general or special order, regulate the distribution of business among them.

16. Appeals

1. Any senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be, aggrieved by an order of a Tribunal may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal:

Provided that on appeal, the children or relative who is required to pay any amount in terms of such maintenance order shall continue to pay to such parent the amount so ordered, in the manner direct