Punjab-Haryana High Court
Major Singh vs District Magistrate Patiala And Ors on 23 January, 2019
Bench: Krishna Murari, Arun Palli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No.120 of 2019 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 23.01.2019
Major Singh
.....Appellant
versus
District Magistrate Patiala and others
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI, JUDGE
Present: Shri Bhavyadeep Walia, Advocate for the appellant
..
KRISHNA MURARI, CHIEF JUSTICE: (Oral) CM-269-LPA-2019:
For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 8 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
C.M. stands disposed of.
LPA-120-2019:
This intra-Court appeal filed by the appellant is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.12.2018 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by him challenging the order dated 13.07.2018 passed by Additional District Magistrate, Patiala, directing his eviction from the house in question under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Welfare Act").
The dispute is between the son and the widowed mother. Brief facts giving rise to the dispute can be summarised as under.
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 11-02-2019 02:52:22 :::
LPA-120-2019 - 2 -
Respondent No.3-Karnail Kaur, mother of Major Singh (the appellant herein), made an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, that her son Major Singh, though owns his own house in Bhawanigarh, but still is unauthorisedly and illegally occupying the house of the applicant. It was also mentioned that he ill-treats her and he may be evicted therefrom.
Admittedly, the property in question belonged to the husband of respondent No.3 who executed a Will dated 02.09.1996 in her favour. Mutation, as regards the same in question, on the basis of the Will, was sanctioned in her favour. The said order was challenged by the appellant by filing an appeal which too was dismissed. Vide order dated 13.07.2018 passed by Additional District Magistrate, Patiala, the appellant was directed to vacate the house. The same was challenged by filing a writ petition which has also been dismissed by the learned single Judge, vide the order impugned in this appeal, by placing reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, 2016(1) R.C.R. (Civil), 324 wherein it was held that petitioner living in a part of the property is only a licensee on the basis of concession and once that licence is terminated he has no vested right of any kind to remain in possession.
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, is patently illegal and without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, under the action plan, framed under section 22 of the Welfare Act, it is only the District Magistrate who is 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 11-02-2019 02:52:23 ::: LPA-120-2019 - 3 -
vested with the power to order eviction and such power cannot be exercised by an Additional District Magistrate.
Ex-facie, this objection with respect to jurisdiction was never raised before the authorities below at all nor any factual foundation was laid in this regard. Learned counsel for the appellant further points out that the issue was raised before the learned single Judge but no finding has been returned in respect thereof.
Be that as it may, we have considered the arguments. Section 22 of the Welfare Act reads as under:-
"22. Authorities who may be specified for implementing the provisions of this Act. -
(1) The State Government may, confer such powers and impose such duties on a District Magistrate as may be necessary, to ensure that the provisions of this Act are properly carried out and the District Magistrate may specify the officer, subordinate to him, who shall exercise all or any of the powers, and perform all or any of the duties, so conferred or imposed and the local limits within which such powers or duties shall be carried out by the officer as may be prescribed.
(2) The State Government shall prescribe a comprehensive action plan for providing protection of life and liberty of senior citizens."
3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 11-02-2019 02:52:23 ::: LPA-120-2019 - 4 -
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 22 of the Welfare Act, the Punjab Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2012, have been framed wherein rule 22 provides for duties and powers of the District Magistrate. Relevant part of the said rule reads as under:-
"22. Duties and Power of the District Magistrate. --
(1) The District Magistrate or any other officer authorized by him in this behalf within the local limits of his jurisdiction shall perform the duties and exercise the powers mentioned in sub rules (2) and (3) so as to ensure that the provision of the act are properly carried out in his district.
...... ..... ..... ...... ...... ...... ......."
A perusal of section 22 of the Act goes to show that State Government can confer such powers and impose such conditions upon the District Magistrate that the provisions of the Welfare Act are properly carried out. Section 22 of the Welfare Act specifically empowers the District Magistrate to specify the officer, subordinate to him, who shall exercise all or any of the powers and perform all or any of the duties, so conferred as also the local limits within such duties shall be carried out.
Learned counsel for the appellant has throughout even failed to assert that no such delegation was made by the District Magistrate to the Additional District Magistrate to pass the impugned orders. In the absence of any factual foundation laid in the pleadings, the argument being advanced at the stage of LPA is not liable to be accepted.
4 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 11-02-2019 02:52:23 :::
LPA-120-2019 - 5 -
Apart from the above, interference in matters like the one in hand, where a widowed mother is being harassed by the appellant to the extent that she had to lodge a first information report and also approach this Court seeking protection of her life and liberty, would totally frustrate the very purpose of enactment itself. Even otherwise, from the facts we have noticed, the father of the appellant had disowned him during his lifetime.
The Will executed by husband of respondent No.3 and father of appellant has been challenged by the appellant before the civil court where the proceedings are pending and the ultimate right in the property would be governed by the outcome of the said proceedings. As of now, for the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove in detail, we are dissuaded from interfering in the matter.
The appeal accordingly fails and stands dismissed.
(KRISHNA MURARI) CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE 23.01.2019 parkash NOTE:
Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO 5 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 11-02-2019 02:52:23 :::