Authorities Under The Senior Citizens Act Cannot Settle Ownership Dispute, Says Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court ruled that the authorities under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, are not authorised to settle claims related to ownership of property. In a recent case hearing, the Court clarified that the Act cannot be used as a tool to resolve property disputes between unrelated parties. While the Act is meant to protect the elderly from neglect and domestic exploitation, the Court emphasised that it does not grant the authorities under the Act the power to bypass civil and revenue courts for settling property ownership-related disputes.

There is a growing trend among senior citizens to attempt to use the Act and summary powers of the District Magistrate to settle land-related matters that are both commercial and civil in nature.

The case filed by a senior citizen (petitioner), who sought direction from the District Magistrate of Ayodhya to protect his life and property. It was related to a plot in the Village Netwari Chaturpur, which the petitioner and his wife purchased in 2005. However, the petitioner alleged that an unrelated party (respondents) who purchased a separate portion of the same plot was trying to possess the petitioner’s plot (sized 13 ft. x 40 ft). Thus, the petitioner sought police protection and relief under Section 22 of the Senior Citizens Act and the respective state rules.

Arguments

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the District Magistrate has the statutory duty to protect the elderly and therefore, should act to maintain law and order related to the plot possession.

On the other hand, the Standing Counsel of the State presented the evidence that the land in question (Plot 102 KA) is a combined Gata number and multiple parties, including the respondents, hold different parts of the land in their names. The counsel argued that the matter is already under consideration under the U.P. Revenue Code for a partition order, and a revision petition is pending before the Additional Commissioner. The respondents also contended that the matter of the dispute is a standard revenue matter rather than an elder abuse matter.

Court Observation

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the 2007 Act is focused on the obligations of the children and relatives to take care of them in their old age.

It noted, “The object of the Act is to provide for an appropriate mechanism to be set up for the institutionalisation of a suitable mechanism for the protection of the life and property of older persons. Filing of an application under the aforesaid Act by an individual aggrieved person is only contemplated by Sections 4 and 5 of the Maintenance Act, which provides for an application for claiming maintenance from the children or relatives, which is not the case here.”

The Court clarified different Sections under the 2007 Act, and held, “The object of the Maintenance Act was not to authorize the authorities under the Act to adjudicate upon the disputes relating to title and possession of immovable properties, more particularly, when the parties are not even related to each other, and such disputes can only be decided by the competent Civil Courts in regular suits.”

Court Judgment

The Court found that the petition lacked merit and thus dismissed the petition. The Court held that the Maintenance Tribunal should not intervene when a property dispute is under consideration in a competent Court. It also highlighted that Section 27 of the 2007 Act, which bars civil court or revenue court jurisdiction, only applies to matters specifically covered by the Act. The Act does not prevent a civil or revenue court from deciding rival claims related to property title or possession.

The Court directed the pending revision before the Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya, to be decided on its own merit without being influenced by this dismissal.