PATNA, India, Oct. 31 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Oct. 9:
Heard learned counsels for the Parties.
2. The Present Writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"(i) For quashing of the order dated 10.06.2022 passed in Senior Citizen (Misc.) Appeal No. 01/2020-21 by the Collector-cumDistrict Magistrate, Patna whereby and whereunder the learned Collector set aside the order of Chairman cum Sub Divisional Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna. (ii) For issuance of direction in the nature of mandamus upon the respondents authority to not disturb the family of the petitioners as the petitioners are living along with their family members. (iii) For issuance of direction as your lordship may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioners."
3. Learned counsel for the appellants, while assailing the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge (Annexure-7 to the LPA appeal), submitted that the very initiation of proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the appellants are not "children" within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act, but nephews of the complainant senior citizen. It was urged that the property in dispute constitutes a joint family property, and issues of ownership, partition, and entitlement are already subjudice before the competent Civil Court (Annexure-2). Despite this, the Maintenance Tribunal, in a summary proceeding under Section 23, assumed to decide complex questions of title and possession, which lie outside its limited statutory domain. The appellants defence and supporting documents, including the written reply (Annexure-6 to the writ petition; Annexure-SA/1 to the supplementary affidavit), the registered family settlement deed (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), and the revenue receipts establishing possession (Annexure-9 to the writ petition), were disregarded, and the appellants were erroneously treated as mere licensees or permissive occupiers.
It was further submitted that the interlocutory applications filed during pendency (Annexure-IA/1 and Annexure-IA/2 to the LPA appeal) demonstrate the continuing prejudice suffered by the appellants due to the impugned orders. It was further contended that eviction or dispossession under Section 23 cannot be ordered mechanically, and the Tribunal is bound to act fairly and in consonance with statutory limitations. On these premises, it was urged that the orders of the Tribunal (Annexure-4 to the writ petition; Annexure-2 to the LPA appeal), affirmed by the learned Single Judge, are vitiated by jurisdictional error, disregard of material evidence, and misapplication of the Act, and therefore warrant interference in this LPA appeal.
The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyMxNjcjMjAyNCMxI04=-HQRGVLGumPk=
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
