The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has ruled that authorities under the UP Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, do not have the power to adjudicate rival claims of ownership or possession of immovable property.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed the judgment recently on a petition filed by one Magghu Ram, seeking directives to the district magistrate, Ayodhya, to protect his life and property under Section 22 of the UP Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and its rules.
The court held, “The protection of property of senior citizens would not extend to deciding rival claims regarding title of immovable property, which can only be done by a Competent Civil/Revenue Court in a regular suit where the parties are given opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective claims which opportunity is not available before the authorities performing duties under the Maintenance Act.”
The court noted that the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 were involved in a property dispute over portions in Netwari Chaturpur village. The petitioner alleged that the opposite parties were attempting to grab part of his property. He sought police protection and intervention from authorities under the Maintenance Act, relying on provisions meant for safeguarding senior citizens.
The court observed that the Maintenance Act primarily aims to ensure care, maintenance, and protection for elderly persons from their relatives, including protection of life and property. However, it does not empower authorities to adjudicate rival claims over title or possession of immovable properties.
“Rival claims to ownership and possession of immovable properties cannot be decided in a summary manner and the same can only be decided by filing of pleadings, framing issues, adducing evidence, cross-examining witnesses and thereafter hearing submissions and delivering a detailed judgment deciding all the issue between the parties,” it added.
The court emphasised that property disputes require a regular civil or revenue proceeding, where parties are given an opportunity to lead evidence and present their claims. Section 27 of the Act, which bars civil courts from interfering in matters under the Act, does not extend to cases where the Act is misused to decide ownership disputes between unrelated parties. With the said ruling, the court dismissed the petition.
