1

CGHC010355102024 2026:CGHC:30326

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

Order Reserved on : 03.07.2026

Order Delivered on : 17.07.2026

WPC No. 5616 of 2024

Ramdayal Sahu S/o Shri Daulatram Sahu, Aged About 65 Years Senior

Citized, Occupation-Retired Employee Of Nagar Panchayat-

Dharamjaigarh, Caste-Teli, R/o Village-Kanchanpur, Post Office-Teram,

Police Station And Tehsil- Gharghoda, District-Raigarh (C.G.)

... Petitioner

versus

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of

Revenue, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal

Nagar, District-Raipur (C.G.)

2 - The Secretary, Department Of Law And Legislature, New Mantralay,

Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District-Raipur (C.G.)

3 - The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, New

Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District-

Raipur (C.G.)

4 - The Collector Cum Appellate Tribunal (Under The Maintenance And

Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act, 2007), District-Raigarh

(C.G.)

5 - The Additional Collector Cum President Appeal Tribunal, (Under The

Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act, 2007),

District-Raigarh (C.G.)

2

6 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) Cum Maintenance Tribunal (Under

The Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act,

2007), Gharghora, District-Raigarh (C.G.)

7 - Dharamdayal Sahu S/o Shri Daulat Sahu, Aged About 63 Years

Agriculturist, Caste Teli, R/o Village-Kanchanpur, Post Office-Teram,

Police Station And Tehsil- Gharghora, District-Raigarh (C.G.)

8 - Deendayal Sahu S/o Shri Daulat Sahu, Aged About 58 Years

Agriculturist, Caste Teli, R/o Village-Kanchanpur, Post Office-Teram,

Police Station And Tehsil-Gharghora, District-Raigarh (C.G.)

9 - Smt. Hemkunwar Widow Of Late Daulatram Sahu, Aged About 80

Years Occupation-Nil, Caste-Teli, R/o Village-Kanchanpur, Post Office-

Teram, Police Station And Tehsil- Gharghora, District-Raigarh (C.G.)

--- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner :Mr. A.N. Bhakta and Mr. Vivek Bhakta,

Advocates

For

State/Respondents

No.1 to 6

:Mr. Anand Dadariya, Deputy Advocate

General

For Respondents

No.7 and 9

:Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

CAV Order

1.Heard Mr. A.N. Bhakta and Mr. Vivek Bhakta, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Anand Dadariya,

learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the

State/Respondents No. 1 to 6 as well as Mr. Ali Asgar, learned

counsel appearing for respondents No.7 and 9.

2.By filing the present petition, the petitioner has called in question

the legality and validity of the order dated 07.08.2024 passed by

3

Respondent No.6 (Additional Collector) in Misc. Case No.

202407043300011/B-121/2023-24, affirming the order dated

15.05.2024 of Respondent No.7, which arose out of the

proceedings initiated pursuant to the order dated 12.11.2021,

whereby the petitioner was directed to vacate the house situated

over Abadi Land bearing Khasra No. 321/46, admeasuring 299

sq. m., situated at Village Kanchanpur, Tahsil Gharghoda, District

Raigarh, in favour of Respondent No.9, along with imposition of

costs of Rs.1,500/-. The petitioner submits that, in compliance

with the impugned order, he voluntarily vacated the house on

06.09.2024; however, instead of Respondent No.9 taking

possession, Respondent No.10 and his family members allegedly

occupied the house in collusion with Respondent No.9 and are

presently residing therein. The petitioner has prayed for following

reliefs:-

“10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to call for the entire records of the

case from the authorities concerned for its

kind. Perusal.

10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to set aside the impugned order dated

07.08.2024 (ANN P-1), passed by the

Respondent No.06 (Additional Collector) in

Misc. Case No.202407043300011/B-

121/2023-24, arising out of the order dated

15.05.2024 (ANN P-2) passed by the

Respondent No.07, in Revenue Case No.

4

202404042600213/11/B-121/2023-24, and

also arising out of the order dated 12.11.2021

(ANN P-3), passed by the Respondent No.07,

vide order No. 2148/A.Vi.A./2024, in the

interest of justice.

10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to direct the Respondent No.10 & his

family members not to occupy the house in

question, which is situated over Kh. No.

321/46, area 299 square meter, village

Kanchanpur, Tahsil Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh

(C.G.)

10.4 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to grant any other relief as deems fit

and proper under the facts and circumstances

of the case, in the interest of justice.”

3.Brief facts of the case, are that, the petitioner, Ramdayal Sahu, is

a retired employee of Nagar Panchayat, Dharamjaigarh and a

senior citizen. Respondent No.6 is the Sub-Divisional Officer

(Revenue), Gharghoda functioning as the Maintenance Tribunal

under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior

Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, ‘Act of 2007’) , whereas Respondent

No.5 is the Additional Collector, Raigarh functioning as the

Appellate Tribunal under the said Act. Respondents No.7 and 8

are the younger brothers of the petitioner and Respondent No.9,

Smt. Hemkunwar, is the petitioner's mother.

4.The dispute pertains to Abadi land bearing Khasra No.321/46,

5

admeasuring 299 square metres, situated at Village Kanchanpur,

Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh. It is not in dispute that the

land in question is Abadi land. According to the petitioner, the

ancestral Abadi land had already been partitioned amongst the

family members by order dated 21.11.2005 passed by the

competent revenue authority, pursuant to which the petitioner

came in possession of his allotted share. Subsequently, a

residential house was constructed under the Pradhan Mantri

Awas Yojana in the name of Respondent No.9.

5.Respondent No.9 initially submitted an application dated

25.10.2021 before the Maintenance Tribunal alleging that the

petitioner had forcibly occupied the house constructed over

Khasra No.321/46 and sought restoration of possession. On the

basis of a joint enquiry conducted by the revenue authorities,

Respondent No.6 passed an order dated 12.11.2021 directing

eviction of the petitioner from the said house. Thereafter,

Respondent No.9 again submitted an application dated

26.02.2024 seeking implementation of the earlier order,

whereupon Revenue Case No.202404042600213/11/B-121/2023-

24 was registered before the Maintenance Tribunal.

6.The petitioner appeared before the Maintenance Tribunal and

objected to the maintainability of the proceedings, contending that

the dispute related to title and possession over ancestral Abadi

land, that all legal heirs were necessary parties, and that the

6

matter was already sub judice before the competent Civil Court.

The petitioner further contended that the authorities exercising

jurisdiction under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and

Senior Citizens Act, 2007 could not adjudicate disputed questions

of title and possession.

7.By order dated 15.05.2024, Respondent No.6 rejected the

petitioner's objections and, while relying upon the earlier order

dated 12.11.2021, directed the Tehsildar to remove the petitioner's

possession from the house situated over Khasra No.321/46 and

hand over possession thereof to Respondent No.9.

8.Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before

Respondent No.5 under Section 16 of the Act of 2007. The

petitioner reiterated that the disputed property formed part of the

ancestral Abadi land already partitioned in the year 2005, that

Civil Suit No.78-A/2023 seeking declaration of title, confirmation of

possession and permanent injunction in respect of the disputed

property was already pending before the Civil Judge, Class-I,

Gharghoda, and that the Maintenance Tribunal had exceeded its

jurisdiction in directing eviction from the disputed property.

9.By order dated 07.08.2024, Respondent No.5 dismissed the

appeal, affirmed the order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the

Maintenance Tribunal and further directed the petitioner as well as

Respondents No.7 and 8 to pay maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per

month each to Respondent No.9. The petitioner states that

7

although he complied with the appellate order and voluntarily

vacated the house on 06.09.2024, immediately thereafter

Respondent No.7 and his family members allegedly occupied the

said house in collusion with Respondent No.9 and are presently

residing therein, while Respondent No.9 herself is not residing in

the disputed premises.

10.It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner has filed the

present writ petition questioning the legality and validity of the

orders dated 15.05.2024 and 07.08.2024 passed by Respondents

No.6 and 5 respectively.

11.Mr. A.N. Bhakta and Mr. Vivek Bhakta, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner, would submit that the impugned order dated

07.08.2024 passed by Respondent No.6 (Additional Collector) in

the capacity of Appellate Tribunal under the Maintenance and

Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter

referred to as "the Act of 2007"), affirming the order dated

15.05.2024 passed by Respondent No.7 (Maintenance Tribunal),

is wholly without jurisdiction, contrary to the statutory scheme of

the Act of 2007 and suffers from non-application of mind. It is

contended that the authorities below have failed to appreciate the

true nature of the dispute, which is not a simple dispute relating to

maintenance or neglect of a senior citizen, but essentially a

dispute relating to title, partition, possession and enjoyment of

ancestral Abadi land amongst family members. They would

8

submit that the disputed property, i.e. Abadi land bearing Khasra

No.321, situated at Village Kanchanpur, Tahsil Gharghoda, District

Raigarh, was ancestral property jointly held by the petitioner, his

mother (Respondent No.9) and his two brothers, namely

Respondent Nos.7 and 8. The respective shares of the family

members were already determined by the competent revenue

authority in Revenue Case No.2A-66/2004-05 by order dated

21.11.2005 passed by the learned Tahsildar, Gharghora. Pursuant

to the said partition proceedings, each of the co-sharers was

allotted his respective share and the petitioner came into

possession of the portion allotted to him.

12.Learned counsel would submit that once the shares of the parties

stood determined by a competent authority in accordance with

law, the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under the Act of 2007

could not have reopened or re-examined the issue of entitlement,

title or possession of the respective co-sharers. It is argued that

the Act of 2007 does not confer any jurisdiction upon the

Maintenance Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal to adjudicate

complicated questions relating to ownership, partition, title or civil

rights in respect of immovable property. Such issues fall

exclusively within the domain of the competent Civil Court. It is

further submitted that the petitioner has already instituted Civil

Suit No.78-A/2023 before the Court of Civil Judge, Class-I,

Gharghoda, seeking declaration of title, confirmation of

possession and permanent injunction in respect of an area

9

admeasuring 5733 square feet situated over Abadi Khasra

No.321. Along with the said suit, the petitioner had also filed an

application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil

Procedure seeking interim protection. Thus, when the civil rights

of the parties were already pending adjudication before the

competent Civil Court, the authorities under the Act of 2007 ought

not to have ventured into deciding the very same dispute under

the guise of proceedings for maintenance and welfare of senior

citizens.

13.Learned counsel would submit that the proceedings initiated by

Respondent No.9, the mother of the petitioner, were not in

substance proceedings for grant of maintenance. Rather, the

entire endeavour was directed towards obtaining possession of

the disputed residential house and settlement of the property

dispute between the family members. It is contended that

Respondent No.9 initially filed an application dated 25.10.2021

before Respondent No.7 under the Act of 2007, pursuant to which

an order dated 12.11.2021 came to be passed directing the

petitioner to vacate the house. Thereafter, again an application

dated 26.02.2024 was filed seeking implementation of the earlier

order, resulting in passing of the order dated 15.05.2024. It is

further submitted that the order dated 12.11.2021 was itself

passed without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner and without adjudicating the petitioner's specific

objection regarding partition of the property and his independent

10

rights flowing from the partition order dated 21.11.2005. It is

argued that the subsequent order dated 15.05.2024 merely

proceeded on the basis of the earlier order and did not

independently consider the objections raised by the petitioner,

including the pendency of the civil suit and the disputed nature of

title and possession.

14.Learned counsel would vehemently submit that the authorities

have selectively proceeded only against the petitioner, although

Respondent Nos.7 and 8 are also sons of Respondent No.9 and

are equally placed in respect of the alleged obligation towards

their mother. It is contended that the petitioner himself is a senior

citizen and is suffering from serious health issues, including

severe paralysis and difficulty in movement, yet the Tribunal

directed eviction only against him while no similar action was

taken against the other family members. Such selective action,

according to learned counsel, is arbitrary, discriminatory and

contrary to the principles of fairness and equality.

15.Learned counsel would place reliance upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samtola Devi Vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh and Others, 2025 INSC 404, decided on 27.03.2025

and submit that the jurisdiction exercised by the authorities under

the Act of 2007 is limited and cannot be extended to adjudicate

disputed questions of title and ownership. It is submitted that the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that although

11

in appropriate cases eviction may be ordered for protection of

senior citizens, such power cannot be exercised mechanically and

cannot be used to dispossess a person whose independent rights

in the property are pending adjudication before the competent

Civil Court.

16.Learned counsel would further submit that the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held that the Tribunal under the Act of 2007 is primarily

concerned with maintenance and welfare of senior citizens and

not with determination of civil rights relating to immovable

property. It is argued that where a dispute regarding share, title or

possession is pending before the Civil Court, the Tribunal cannot

bypass such proceedings and grant eviction merely on the basis

of an assertion made by one of the parties regarding ownership of

the property. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated

07.08.2024 passed by Respondent No.6 is also without

jurisdiction, as the appeal under Section 16 of the Act of 2007

could only be decided by the Appellate Tribunal constituted in

accordance with Section 15 of the Act. Learned counsel would

submit that the statutory provision requires the Appellate Tribunal

to be presided over by an officer not below the rank of District

Magistrate and the power conferred upon the Appellate Tribunal

cannot be delegated to the Additional Collector unless specifically

authorized by law. It is submitted that despite a direction issued by

this Court on 12.12.2024 calling upon the State to explain the

authority under which the Additional Collector exercised appellate

12

jurisdiction, no satisfactory explanation has been placed on

record.

17.Learned counsel would further submit that the issue regarding

exercise of powers by revenue officers as Maintenance

Tribunal/Appellate Tribunal has already been considered by a Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(227) No.217/2020 (Rajesh

Yadav and others v. Shyam Lal Yadav), wherein it has been

held that proceedings under the Act of 2007 must be conducted

by duly constituted Tribunals and not by officers acting merely in

their administrative capacity. It is submitted that any order passed

by an authority lacking jurisdiction is void ab initio. They would

further submit that pursuant to the impugned order dated

07.08.2024, the petitioner voluntarily vacated the disputed house

on 06.09.2024 and a Panchnama was prepared. However,

immediately thereafter, instead of Respondent No.9 occupying the

premises, so-called family members allegedly entered into

possession and started residing therein. According to learned

counsel, this subsequent conduct itself demonstrates that the

proceedings under the Act of 2007 were not initiated for securing

the welfare or residence of the senior citizen, but were utilized as

a means to secure possession for another family member.

18.Learned counsel would further submit that during the pendency of

the present writ petition, allegations were repeatedly made before

this Court that the petitioner was obstructing the pathway and

13

access to the house of his mother. Pursuant to the order dated

30.04.2026 passed by this Court, the Additional Tahsildar,

Gharghora conducted spot inspection and submitted a report

dated 17.06.2026 along with Panchnama dated 13.06.2026. The

said report clearly records that no obstruction, fencing or any

other construction was found at the site and that there was no

restriction on movement towards the house of Respondent No.9.

They would submit that the aforesaid spot inspection report

completely belies the allegations levelled against the petitioner

and demonstrates that false allegations were made only to

prejudice the Court and to obtain favourable orders against the

petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has throughout acted

bona fide and has complied with the directions passed by the

authorities, whereas the private respondents have attempted to

convert the proceedings under the Act of 2007 into a mechanism

for resolving a private family property dispute.

19.Learned counsel would lastly submit that the petitioner is regularly

paying the maintenance amount of Rs.1,500/- per month as

directed by the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, there is no issue

regarding neglect or failure to maintain Respondent No.9. The

only surviving dispute relates to possession and title over the

immovable property, which cannot be decided by the authorities

under the Act of 2007. The share and rights of all family members,

including Respondent No.9, are required to be adjudicated only by

the competent Civil Court. On the aforesaid grounds, learned

14

counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned

orders dated 15.05.2024 and 07.08.2024 passed by Respondent

Nos.7 and 6 respectively deserve to be quashed and set aside,

being contrary to the statutory provisions, without jurisdiction and

violative of the settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court.

20.On the other hand, Mr. Anand Dadariya, learned Deputy Advocate

General appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 6, while

vehemently opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the

petitioner, would submit that the impugned orders do not suffer

from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting

interference in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this

Court. It is submitted that the proceedings were initiated by

Respondent No.9, an aged senior citizen, under the provisions of

the Act of 2007, alleging that despite the house having been

constructed in her name over Abadi land bearing Khasra

No.321/46, the petitioner had forcibly occupied the same and

deprived her of the right to reside therein. Pursuant to her

complaint, a joint enquiry was conducted by the competent

authorities and the enquiry committee categorically found that the

petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of the house, on the

basis whereof the order dated 12.11.2021 directing restoration of

possession in favour of Respondent No.9 came to be passed.

Since the said order had remained unimplemented for a

considerable period, Respondent No.9 was constrained to again

15

approach the Maintenance Tribunal, which rightly proceeded to

implement the earlier order by directing eviction of the petitioner

from the disputed house.

21.Learned Deputy Advocate General would further submit that the

impugned order dated 15.05.2024 has rightly been passed by the

Maintenance Tribunal in exercise of powers under Section 23 of

the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,

2007. It is contended that, upon due consideration of the material

available on record and the enquiry report, the Tribunal found that

Respondent No.9, an aged senior citizen, had been unlawfully

deprived of possession of the residential house standing on Abadi

land bearing Khasra No.321/46, which stood leased in her name.

Accordingly, in consonance with the object and scheme of the Act,

the Tribunal directed the petitioner to vacate the disputed house

and hand over peaceful possession thereof to Respondent No.9

within the stipulated period. It is further submitted that the said

order has rightly been affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal by order

dated 07.08.2024, as no illegality or jurisdictional error was found

in the findings recorded by the Maintenance Tribunal. The

Appellate Tribunal, while confirming the order of eviction, has only

modified the relief by exercising its powers under Section 16 of

the Act and directed the petitioner as well as Respondents No.7

and 8, being the sons of Respondent No.9, to pay maintenance of

Rs.1,500/- per month each to their mother. He would further

submit that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior

16

Citizens Act, 2007 is a beneficial and welfare-oriented social

legislation enacted with the avowed object of ensuring

maintenance, protection and welfare of parents and senior

citizens, who, owing to the gradual disintegration of the traditional

joint family system, are increasingly being neglected by their

children and relatives. It is submitted that a large number of

elderly persons, particularly widows, are deprived of financial

support, proper care, shelter and medical assistance, thereby

exposing them to physical, emotional and economic hardship. To

address these growing social concerns, Parliament enacted the

Act of 2007 with the object of providing a simple, speedy and

inexpensive mechanism for securing maintenance, residence,

protection of life and property, and other welfare measures for

senior citizens. The Act also casts a statutory obligation upon

children and relatives to maintain and look after their aged

parents. It is, therefore, contended that the provisions of the Act

deserve to be interpreted purposively so as to advance the object

of the legislation rather than defeat it on hyper-technical or

procedural grounds. According to the learned State counsel, the

objections raised by the petitioner are purely technical in nature

and cannot be permitted to frustrate the beneficial purpose sought

to be achieved by the Act of 2007, particularly when the

authorities have acted to secure the welfare and residential rights

of an aged widow and senior citizen.

22.In reply to the objection regarding jurisdiction raised by the

17

petitioner, learned State counsel would further submit that the

State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred under

Section 15(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and

Senior Citizens Act, 2007, has already issued Notification No. F-1-

1/2009/S.W./26 dated 24.01.2009 constituting the Appellate

Tribunal for deciding appeals under the Act of 2007. As per the

said notification, the Appellate Tribunal consists of the District

Collector as its Chairman, a female member nominated by the

Chairperson of the Zila Panchayat, the Chief Medical and Health

Officer, a senior citizen above the age of sixty years nominated by

the Collector, and the Joint/Deputy Director (In-charge Deputy

Director), Panchayat and Social Welfare of the District as the

Coordinator. It is submitted that the appellate proceedings in the

present case have been conducted in consonance with the

statutory framework and the notification issued by the State

Government. Merely because the appellate order has been

signed and pronounced by the Additional Collector would not, by

itself, render the order without jurisdiction, as the Additional

Collector was duly authorized to discharge the functions of the

Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the administrative

arrangement prevailing in the district. It is further submitted that

the petitioner has failed to establish that any prejudice has been

caused to him on account of the appellate proceedings having

been conducted in the aforesaid manner.

23.Learned Deputy Advocate General would further submit that the

18

constitution of the Maintenance Tribunal as well as the Appellate

Tribunal under the Act of 2007 is strictly in accordance with the

provisions of the Act, 2007 and the Notification dated 24.01.2009

issued by the State Government. It is submitted that the District

Collector, being the Chairman of the Appellate Tribunal, is

competent under the administrative set-up of the State to delegate

or authorize the Additional Collector to discharge the functions of

the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the

petitioner was rightly heard and decided by the Additional

Collector, Raigarh, in discharge of the powers vested in the

Appellate Tribunal. It is contended that such delegation is legally

permissible and has not been shown to be contrary to any

statutory provision or executive instruction governing the field.

24.Learned State counsel would contend that once the Additional

Collector was duly authorized to exercise the appellate powers on

behalf of the Collector, the order dated 07.08.2024 cannot be said

to be without jurisdiction merely because it has been passed by

the Additional Collector. The petitioner has neither challenged the

validity of the administrative authorization nor demonstrated any

prejudice caused on account of the appeal having been decided

by the Additional Collector. Therefore, the objection regarding lack

of jurisdiction is wholly misconceived and deserves to be rejected.

It is submitted that both the Maintenance Tribunal and the

Appellate Tribunal have exercised their respective powers in

accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2007 and the orders

19

passed by them do not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity

warranting interference by this Court.

25.Mr. Ali Asgar, learned counsel appearing for Respondents No.7

and 9, while adopting the submissions advanced by the learned

Deputy Advocate General, would further submit that the orders

passed by the Maintenance Tribunal as well as the Appellate

Tribunal are perfectly legal, justified and in consonance with the

object and scheme of the Act of 2007. It is submitted that

Respondent No.9 is an aged widow and senior citizen, who had

been deprived of possession of the residential house standing

over Abadi land bearing Khasra No.321/46 despite the lease and

the house standing in her name. After considering the enquiry

report and the material placed on record, the Maintenance

Tribunal rightly directed restoration of possession in favour of

Respondent No.9, which order has been affirmed by the Appellate

Tribunal. The concurrent findings recorded by both the authorities

are pure findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence and do

not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its

extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India. He would further submit that the petitioner has

deliberately attempted to convert a welfare proceeding under the

Act of 2007 into a title dispute merely to defeat the legitimate

rights of Respondent No.9. The pendency of the civil suit filed by

the petitioner does not create any embargo on the exercise of

jurisdiction by the authorities under the Act, particularly when no

20

interim protection has been granted by the competent Civil Court.

It is further submitted that the Appellate Tribunal has rightly

directed all the three sons of Respondent No.9, including the

petitioner, to contribute towards the maintenance of their aged

mother by paying Rs.1,500/- per month each, which is fully in

accordance with the statutory obligation cast upon children under

the Act.

26.It is further submitted that the mere pendency of a civil suit

instituted by the petitioner does not, in any manner, create a bar

to the exercise of jurisdiction by the authorities under the

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,

2007. According to him, the Act of 2007 is a special, beneficial

and welfare-oriented legislation enacted to provide immediate and

effective protection to senior citizens against neglect, harassment

and unlawful deprivation of their right to residence and

maintenance. Therefore, the pendency of a civil proceeding

relating to title or possession cannot defeat or postpone the

statutory remedies available to a senior citizen under the Act.

Learned counsel would further submit that even the petitioner's

application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil

Procedure seeking temporary injunction has already been

rejected by the competent Civil Court and, therefore, there was no

interim protection operating in favour of the petitioner which could

have restrained the authorities from proceeding under the Act of

2007. He would further submit that both the Maintenance Tribunal

21

as well as the Appellate Tribunal have passed the impugned

orders after considering the pleadings of the parties, the enquiry

report and all the material available on record, and have

concurrently recorded findings that Respondent No.9, an aged

widow and senior citizen, was entitled to restoration of possession

of the house standing on the land leased in her name. It is

submitted that the impugned orders are fully in consonance with

the provisions of the Act of 2007 and do not suffer from any

jurisdictional error or legal infirmity warranting interference by this

Court. Learned counsel lastly submits that the petitioner has

already complied with the appellate order by voluntarily vacating

the house in question and, presently, Respondent No.9 is residing

in the said house. In such circumstances, no cause survives for

interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction and the petition

deserves to be dismissed.

27.Learned counsel appearing for Respondents No.7 to 9 would

vehemently oppose the allegation of the petitioner that the

proceedings under the Act of 2007 were initiated at the behest or

instigation of Respondents No.7 and 8. It is submitted that such

allegation is wholly baseless, unsupported by any cogent material

and has been made only to divert attention from the real issue.

According to the learned counsel, the proceedings were initiated

solely at the instance of Respondent No.9, an aged widow and

senior citizen, for protection of her statutory rights under the Act of

2007. The competent authorities, after conducting a detailed

22

enquiry and considering the material available on record,

independently arrived at the conclusion that Respondent No.9 had

been unlawfully deprived of possession of her residential house.

Therefore, the petitioner's allegation that the entire proceedings

were engineered at the behest of Respondents No.7 and 8 is

liable to be rejected outright as being devoid of any factual or

legal foundation. As such, the instant petition being devoid of

merit, is liable to be dismissed.

28.I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties

at considerable length and carefully perused the pleadings, the

documents brought on record and the relevant statutory

provisions governing the controversy involved in the present writ

petition.

29.From a meticulous perusal of the entire record of the case, the

pleadings of the parties and the documents brought on record,

this Court finds that the genesis of the dispute lies in the

application preferred by Respondent No.9, Smt. Hemkunwar, an

aged widow and senior citizen, under the provisions of the Act of

2007 alleging that she had been unlawfully deprived of

possession of the residential house constructed in her name over

Abadi land bearing Khasra No.321/46, admeasuring 299 square

metres, situated at Village Kanchanpur, Tahsil Gharghoda, District

Raigarh. The record would reveal that immediately after receipt of

the complaint, the competent authorities caused a joint enquiry to

23

be conducted through the revenue as well as administrative

officials. The enquiry report, after spot inspection and verification

of the factual position, found that the petitioner was occupying the

residential house claimed by Respondent No.9. Acting upon the

said enquiry report, the competent authority passed an order

dated 12.11.2021 directing restoration of possession of the

residential house to Respondent No.9. Since the said order

remained unimplemented for a considerable length of time,

Respondent No.9 was constrained to once again invoke the

jurisdiction of the Maintenance Tribunal by filing a fresh

application seeking implementation of the earlier order.

30.From the material available on record, it is also evident that

Respondent No.9, Smt. Hemkunwar, is the recorded

lessee/pattadhar of the disputed Abadi land bearing Khasra

No.321/46, admeasuring 299 square metres, situated at Village

Kanchanpur, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh. It is not in

dispute that the lease/patta in respect of the said land was

granted in her favour by the competent authority and the same

continues to remain valid and subsisting. The record further

discloses that under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Gramin),

financial assistance for construction of a residential house was

sanctioned in the name of Respondent No.9. Though the

construction of the house was undertaken with the assistance and

supervision of one of her sons, namely Respondent No.7, the

beneficiary of the housing scheme continued to be Respondent

24

No.9 alone and the house was constructed exclusively for her

residence and welfare. Thus, the residential house standing over

the leased Abadi land was intended to provide shelter and

security to Respondent No.9 in her old age. In such

circumstances, the competent authorities were fully justified in

protecting her right to occupy and reside in the said house by

directing restoration of possession in her favour under the

provisions of the Act of 2007.

31.The record further reveals that during the proceedings before the

Maintenance Tribunal, the petitioner was duly served with notice

and afforded adequate opportunity to contest the proceedings.

The petitioner not only filed his detailed objections questioning the

maintainability of the proceedings but also raised all conceivable

pleas including pendency of Civil Suit No.78-A/2023, alleged

partition of the Abadi land, lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal and

non-joinder of necessary parties. The Maintenance Tribunal

considered each of the objections so raised, examined the

documents placed by both the parties and thereafter recorded a

categorical finding that the earlier order dated 12.11.2021 had not

been implemented and that no interim or final order had been

passed by the competent Civil Court restraining the authorities

from proceeding under the provisions of the Act of 2007.

Consequently, by order dated 15.05.2024, the Maintenance

Tribunal directed implementation of the earlier order by restoring

possession of the residential house to Respondent No.9. Feeling

25

aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the

Appellate Tribunal. The appellate authority again afforded full

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, independently examined

the grounds urged in appeal and, upon re-appreciation of the

entire material available on record, affirmed the findings recorded

by the Maintenance Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal further

modified the order to the limited extent of directing the petitioner

as well as Respondents No.7 and 8, being the sons of

Respondent No.9, to pay maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month

each in favour of their aged mother in exercise of powers under

Section 16 of the Act of 2007. It is also borne out from the record

that in compliance with the appellate order, the petitioner

voluntarily vacated the disputed residential house.

32.The Act of 2007 plays a crucial role in promoting the well-being

and dignity of senior citizens in India. It provides a legal

framework for ensuring financial security, health care access and

property protection for the elderly. By holding children and

relatives accountable for the maintenance of their elderly family

members, the act discourages neglect, abandonment and abuse

of senior citizens. The Constitution of India also recognises the

need for State intervention in taking measures to create suitable

framework for the protection of elderly persons. As per the Article

41 under Directive Principles of State Policy: “the State shall,

within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make

effective provision for securing right to work, to education and to

26

public assistance in case of unemployment, old age, sickness and

disablement and in other cases of undeserved want”.

33.The Act of 2007 is based on the vision of Article 41 of the

Constitution. It was enacted by the Parliament to protect the rights

and interests of senior citizens and enable them to lead a life with

dignity and respect. It further aims to provide a comprehensive

framework for ensuring the well-being of senior citizens in India.

The parliament enacted the Act of 2007 to uphold the dignity and

respect of a senior citizen at the time of old age. State had serious

concern about the challenges faced by the people in their old age.

Apart from physical vulnerabilities, they face emotional and

psychological challenges. On account of these frailties, they are

totally dependent. The moral laws formulated through the

legislation is necessary to rationalise the well-being of all in the

society. The moral values that prevailed in the society in the past

have been accepted as universal values. The State in its wisdom,

considering the acceptance of these values, seeks to promote the

common good through the Senior Citizens Act. These values

carried duties and obligations. The preamble of the Act of 2007

underscores the need for effective provisions to secure the

maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens, as

guaranteed under the Constitution. Being a beneficial piece of

legislation, it is necessary to interpret it liberally to ensure that the

intent of the legislation is fulfilled and the rights and dignity of

senior citizens are effectively protected.

27

34.The Supreme Court in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner,

Bengaluru Urban District & Ors., (2021) 15 SCC 730, while

interpreting the provisions of the Act of 2007, recognized the

statute as a social welfare legislation intended to protect the

maintenance and welfare of senior citizens and observed that the

remedies under the Act must be construed in a manner that

furthers the legislative purpose of securing dignity, maintenance

and protection to elderly parents and senior citizens.

35.Likewise, in Arun Kumar Nayyar v. State of Haryana & Ors.,

(2022) 6 SCC 629, the Supreme Court reiterated that the purpose

of the enactment is to ensure that senior citizens are not left

destitute, neglected or at the mercy of their children or relatives,

and that the provisions of the Act must be implemented in a

manner consistent with its beneficial object.

36.It is true that the Act of 2007 is not a substitute for a civil suit for

declaration of title and that the Maintenance Tribunal does not

function as a civil Court for adjudication of complex questions of

ownership. However, that is not the true issue which arose for

determination before the Tribunal in the present case. A careful

reading of the application preferred by respondent No. 3 before

the Maintenance Tribunal would show that her grievance was

essentially one of harassment, neglect, intimidation and

disturbance of her peaceful possession and residence in the

house in which she has admittedly been residing for decades. The

relief sought by her was in the nature of protection of her person

28

and residence against the petitioners, who, according to her, had

become a source of constant threat and mental harassment. The

proceedings before the Tribunal were, therefore, not in the nature

of a title suit, but were welfare proceedings initiated by an aged

mother seeking protection against the conduct of her son and

daughter-in-law. In such proceedings, the Tribunal was required to

examine whether respondent No. 3, being a senior citizen, had

established a case warranting protection of her residence and

peaceful enjoyment of the property, and whether the continuance

of the petitioners in the premises was inconsistent with such

protection.

37.In Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684

in para 13, the Supreme Court made an observation as under;

(SCC OnLine SC para 6)

“14. When a senior citizen parts with his or her

property by executing a gift or a release or

otherwise in favour of his or her near and dear

ones, a condition of looking after the senior

citizen is not necessarily attached to it. On the

contrary, very often, such transfers are made

out of love and affection without any

expectation in return. Therefore, when it is

alleged that the conditions mentioned in sub-

section (1) of Section 23 are attached to a

transfer, existence of such conditions must be

established before the Tribunal.”

38.The Supreme Court of India in the recent case of Urmila Dixit vs.

29

Sunil Sharan Dixit, (2025) 2 SCC 787, the Supreme Court

clarified that Section 23 of Act of 2007 is not a standalone

provision, as Section 23 of the Act of 2007 cannot be read in

isolation as it directly reflects the statutory purpose of

safeguarding senior citizens, thus demanding a purposive

approach. The court held, if a gift deed does not explicitly mention

maintenance, it should be interpreted pragmatically to prevent

neglect of the elderly. The Hon’ble Court interpreted Section 23(1)

of the Act of 2007 to hold that express condition in the deed may

not be required and non-maintenance of a senior citizen per se

would result in invoking the implied condition for which such gift or

settlement deed has been executed by the senior citizen out of

love and affection, which is relatable to human conduct. In the

said judgment, the Supreme Court further clarified the scope of

the Senior Citizens Act in paras 23, 24 and 25, which reads as

under : (SCC p. 796, paras 23-25)

“23. The appellant has submitted before us that

such an undertaking stands grossly unfulfilled

and in her petition under Section 23, it has

been averred that there is a breakdown of

peaceful relations inter se the parties. In such a

situation, the two conditions mentioned in

Sudesh Chhikara case must be appropriately

interpreted to further the beneficial nature of

the legislation and not strictly which would

render otiose the intent of the legislature.

Therefore, the Single Judge of the High Court

and the Tribunals below had rightly held the

30

Gift Deed to be cancelled since the conditions

for the well-being of the senior citizens were

not complied with. We are unable to agree with

the view taken by the Division Bench, because

it takes a strict view of a beneficial legislation.

24. Before parting with the case at hand, we

must clarify the observations made vide the

impugned order¹ qua the competency of the

Tribunal to hand over possession of the

property. In S. Vanitha v. Commr., (2021) 15

SCC 730, this Court observed that Tribunals

under the Act may order eviction if it is

necessary and expedient to ensure the

protection of the senior citizen. Therefore, it

cannot be said that the Tribunals constituted

under the Act, while exercising jurisdiction

under Section 23, cannot order possession to

be transferred. This would defeat the purpose

and object of the Act, which is to provide

speedy, simple and inexpensive remedies for

the elderly.

25.Another observation of the High Court that

must be clarified, is Section 23 being a

standalone provision of the Act. In our

considered view, the relief available to senior

citizens under Section 23 is intrinsically linked

with the statement of objects and reasons of

the Act, that elderly citizens of our country, in

some cases, are not being looked after. It is

directly in furtherance of the objectives of the

Act and empowers senior citizens to secure

their rights promptly when they transfer a

property subject to the condition of being

31

maintained by the transferee.”

39.Further, in the matter of Kamalakant Mishra vs. Additional

Collector and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2077, the Supreme

Court emphasized that the provisions of the Act of 2007 must be

construed in a manner that meaningfully protects the life, property

and dignity of senior citizens, and upheld the authority of the

Tribunal/Appellate Authority to secure eviction of children/legal

heirs whose occupation had become detrimental to the senior

citizens’ peaceful enjoyment of their own property. The ratio

emerging from the aforesaid decisions is that the power of the

Tribunal cannot be reduced to a sterile power to merely award

money; where the facts justify, the Tribunal can grant effective

relief to secure the senior citizen’s right to live peacefully and with

dignity. Relevant para reads as under:-

“7. The framework of the Act clearly notes that

the law was enacted to address the plight of

older persons, for their care and protection.

Being a welfare legislation, its provisions must

be construed liberally so as to advance its

beneficent purpose. This Court on several

occasions has observed that the Tribunal is

well within its powers to order eviction of a

child or a relative from the property of a senior

citizen, when there is a breach of the

obligation to maintain the senior citizen.2 In

the present case, despite being financially

stable, the respondent has acted in breach of

his statutory obligations in not allowing the

32

appellant to reside in the properties owned by

him, thereby frustrating the very object of the

Act. High Court fell in error in allowing the writ

petition on a completely untenable ground.”

40.In the considered opinion of this Court, when the proceedings

initiated under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and

Senior Citizens Act, 2007 are examined in their proper statutory

perspective, the principal contention raised by the petitioner that

the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal had no

authority to pass any order affecting possession of the disputed

residential premises merely because the question of title and

share is pending adjudication before the Civil Court, requires

careful consideration. It is true that the object of the Act of 2007 is

not merely confined to grant of monetary maintenance, but the

provisions contained therein empower the authorities constituted

under the Act to issue appropriate directions necessary for

ensuring the welfare, protection and dignity of senior citizens.

41.However, in the present case, the dispute is not confined to a

mere claim of maintenance by Respondent No.9/mother of the

petitioner. The material available on record indicates that the

property in question forms part of the ancestral Abadi land jointly

held by the petitioner, Respondent No.9 and the other co-sharers,

and their respective shares had already been determined by the

Tahsildar, Gharghora in Revenue Case No.2A-66/2004-05 vide

order dated 21.11.2005. The petitioner has also instituted Civil

Suit No.78-A/2023 before the competent Civil Court seeking

33

declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent

injunction in respect of the disputed property, wherein the rights

and shares of the parties are yet to be finally adjudicated.

42.Therefore, while considering the scope of jurisdiction under the

Act of 2007, the authorities were required to examine whether the

direction for eviction of the petitioner was necessary for protecting

the welfare and residence of the senior citizen or whether such

direction would virtually amount to deciding the disputed civil

rights between the family members. The proceedings under the

Act cannot be permitted to become a substitute for adjudication of

complicated questions relating to title, partition and possession,

which are matters falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the

Civil Court. At the same time, the protective object of the Act

requires the Court to balance the rights of the senior citizen with

the pending civil rights of the parties and to ensure that the

dignity, residence and maintenance of the senior citizen are

adequately safeguarded.

43.In S. Vanitha (supra), the Supreme Court observed that the

Tribunal under the Act of 2007 may, where necessary and

expedient, mould relief so as to protect the senior citizen and

ensure that the statutory object is not defeated.

44.Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is evident from the

record that Respondent No.9-Smt. Hemkunwar, is an aged widow

and senior citizen, who approached the Maintenance Tribunal

34

alleging that she was deprived of peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the residential house situated over Abadi land

bearing Khasra No.321/46, area 299 square metres, Village

Kanchanpur, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh. It is not in

dispute that the said Abadi land stands recorded in the name of

Respondent No.9 and the residential house was constructed

thereon for her residence and welfare. The material available on

record further indicates that the said house was constructed under

the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Gramin), wherein Respondent

No.9 was the beneficiary.

45.The grievance raised by Respondent No.9 before the

Maintenance Tribunal was, therefore, not merely a dispute

regarding ownership of the property but was essentially a

complaint regarding deprivation of shelter, security and peaceful

residence during her old age. The enquiry conducted by the

competent authority revealed that the petitioner was occupying

the said residential premises.

46.Acting upon the enquiry report, the Maintenance Tribunal passed

an order dated 12.11.2021 directing restoration of possession in

favour of Respondent No.9. The said order remained

unimplemented for a considerable period, compelling Respondent

No.9 to approach the Tribunal once again, which ultimately

resulted in passing of the order dated 15.05.2024.

47.It is true that the Act of 2007 cannot be treated as a substitute for

35

proceedings before a Civil Court for declaration of title or

adjudication of complicated questions relating to ownership,

partition or inheritance. The Maintenance Tribunal does not

exercise the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. However, in the present

case, the question which fell for consideration before the

authorities was not the final determination of title between the

parties, but whether the residential protection and welfare of an

aged mother, who claimed deprivation of her residence, required

intervention under the provisions of the Act of 2007.

48.The contention of the petitioner that since the partition

proceedings had already taken place before the Tahsildar,

Gharghora in Revenue Case No.2A-66/2004-05 and since Civil

Suit No.78-A/2023 is pending before the Civil Court, the

authorities under the Act of 2007 were completely divested of

jurisdiction, cannot be accepted in absolute terms. The pendency

of civil proceedings regarding property rights does not ipso facto

take away the limited protective jurisdiction conferred upon the

authorities under the Act of 2007, particularly when the

proceedings are initiated for securing the immediate welfare and

protection of a senior citizen.

49.In Sudesh Chhikara (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court

observed that the authorities under the Act of 2007 are required to

examine whether the statutory requirements for granting relief are

satisfied and that the beneficial object of the legislation cannot be

defeated by adopting a hyper-technical approach. The Court

36

emphasized that the provisions of the Act are intended to protect

senior citizens from neglect and deprivation and must be applied

keeping in view the purpose for which the enactment has been

brought into force.

50.Further, in Urmila Dixit (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court

reiterated that the provisions of the Act of 2007 cannot be

interpreted in a narrow manner which defeats the very object of

the legislation. The Court held that the Act has to be construed

purposively so as to provide an effective remedy to senior citizens

and to ensure that their dignity and welfare are protected. It was

further observed that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal cannot be

reduced to a mere power of awarding maintenance where

circumstances require effective protective measures.

51.Likewise, in Kamalakant Mishra (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme

Court emphasized that the provisions of the Act of 2007 must be

interpreted in a manner which meaningfully protects the life,

property and dignity of senior citizens. The Court recognized that

where the occupation of a child or relative becomes detrimental to

the peaceful enjoyment of property by a senior citizen, the

authorities under the Act are empowered to issue appropriate

directions to secure such protection.

52.Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case,

this Court finds that the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal

was not an adjudication of the final civil rights of the petitioner and

37

Respondent No.9. The order was passed in exercise of the limited

protective jurisdiction under the Act of 2007 with the object of

ensuring that Respondent No.9, being an aged widow and senior

citizen, is able to reside peacefully and with dignity in the

residential premises claimed by her.

53.At the same time, it is required to be clarified that the findings

recorded by the authorities under the Act of 2007 or by this Court

in the present proceedings shall not determine or prejudice the

rights of the parties in Civil Suit No.78-A/2023 pending before the

competent Civil Court. The question regarding title, share, validity

of partition proceedings dated 21.11.2005 and other civil rights of

the parties shall be decided by the Civil Court in accordance with

law. As the powers of the Collector have duly been delegated to

the Additional Collector in accordance with law, the Additional

Collector was fully competent to exercise such delegated

authority. Consequently, the order passed by the Additional

Collector cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or suffering from

any jurisdictional infirmity. The impugned order, having been

passed within the four corners of the authority so delegated, does

not warrant interference on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

54.Thus, keeping in view the beneficial object of the Act of 2007, the

status of Respondent No.9 as an aged widow and senior citizen,

the nature of grievance raised before the Maintenance Tribunal

and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that

38

the authorities below cannot be said to have acted beyond the

jurisdiction vested in them while passing appropriate directions for

protection of Respondent No.9.

55.Consequently, the impugned orders dated 15.05.2024 passed by

the Maintenance Tribunal and dated 07.08.2024 passed by the

Appellate Authority do not suffer from any jurisdictional error,

perversity or violation of the principles of natural justice warranting

interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

56.Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of substance, deserves

to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

Judge

Yogesh

The date when the

judgment is

reserved

The date when the

judgment is

pronounced

The date when the judgment is

uploaded on the website

Operative Full

03.07.2026 17.07.2026 ------ 17.07.2026