Authorities Under Maintenance Of Senior Citizens Act Cannot Decide Ownership Or Possession Disputes: Allahabad High Court
A writ petition was filed seeking directions to the District Magistrate, to protect his life and property under Section 22 of the U.P. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and Rule 21 of the Maintenance Rules, 2014.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
The Allahabad High Court held that authorities under the U.P. 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.
A writ petition was filed seeking directions to the District Magistrate, to protect his life and property under Section 22 of the U.P. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and Rule 21 of the Maintenance Rules, 2014.
A Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi 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.”
Advocate Gauri Shankar Maurya appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Shobh Nath Pandey appeared for the respondents.
The Court noted that the petitioner and respondents 5& 6 were involved in a property dispute over portions in Village. The petitioner claimed 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. It added, “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. Therefore, the authorities under the Maintenance Act are not meant to decide the rival claims regarding ownership and possession of immovable properties.”
The Court emphasized 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.
The Court also noted that the property in question was already under consideration before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), and the matter would be decided on merits without being influenced by the dismissal of the petition.
Accordingly, the Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed the same, clarifying that the authorities under the Maintenance Act cannot adjudicate rival ownership or possession claims of immovable property.
Cause Title: Magghu Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors., [2026:AHC-LKO:17019]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Gauri Shankar Maurya and Ashutosh Srivastava
Respondents: Advocate Shobh Nath Pandey
