Allahabad High Court
Chandrika Singh vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 3 November, 2020
Author: Jayant Banerji
Bench: Sunita Agarwal, Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41030 of 2019 Petitioner :- Chandrika Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharangpani Vikramdhar Dwivedi,Ram Pratap Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
In re:Civil Misc.Amendment Application No.5 of 2020 Amendments are formal in nature.
No objection has been raised to the same.
The amendment application is allowed.
Let the necessary incorporation be made within the course of the day.
Order Date :- 3.11.2020 Harshita Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41030 of 2019 Petitioner :- Chandrika Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharangpani Vikramdhar Dwivedi,Ram Pratap Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel and perused the record.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner seeks writ of mandamus commanding respondents i.e District Magistrate, Prayagraj (Allahabad) to take a decision in the complaint filed by the petitioner on 12.2.2019 appended as Annexure-'3' to the writ petition. The said complaint has been filed under Rule 21 and 22 of the U.P Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act", 2007) read with Rule 21 and Rule 22 of the Rules framed thereunder by the State of U.P. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Rule 21 and 22 of the Act, 2007 confers power on the District Magistrate, Allahabad to decide the complaint filed by a senior citizen to evict his relatives who have illegally occupied the ancestral property situated in District Azamgarh.
The contention is that the definition of "property" under Clause 2(f) of the Act, 2007 includes the "ancestral" property and any right or interest of the senior citizen in such property has to be protected by the District Magistrate by invoking provisions under Rule 21 and 22 of the Rules framed under the Act.
Submission is that Rule 21 of the the U.P Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules, 2014 framed under the Act' 2007 (in brief referred as the 'Rules 2014') mandates the District Magistrate to exercise all necessary power so as to ensure that the provisions of Act are properly carried out.
It is the duty of the District Magistrate to ensure that the life and property of the senior citizens of the district is protected and they are able to live with security and dignity. The affidavit accompanying amendment application filed on 31.8.2020 has been placed before us to submit that the Sub-Divisional Officer Sadar Prayagraj (Allahabad) has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him while disposing of the application dated 12.2.2019 vide order dated 24.8.2020.
The opinion formed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Sadar Prayagraj that he has no jurisdiction to look into the complaint, in as much as, the movable and immovable property with respect to which relief has been sought is located in district Azamgarh, suffers from serious error of law.
Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, defends the order impugned for the reasons given therein and submits that the relief sought by the applicant/petitioner in the application dated 12.2.2019 was beyond the jurisdiction of the district authorities in Prayagraj (Allahabad). The Sub-Divisional Officer Sadar Prayagraj (Allahabad) cannot be said to have committed any error of jurisdiction or law in disposing of the application dated 12.2.2019 by directing the police authority to ensure that the life and property of the petitioner a senior citizen residing in the district Prayagraj (Allahabad) is protected.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it would be appropriate to first go through the application dated 12.2.2019 filed by the petitioner under the Act 2007, appended at page no.'39' of the paper book.
Perusal of the averments in the said application, paragraph '2' indicates that the dispute being raised by the petitioner/applicant is with regard to the ancestral property situated in village Beerpur Mehnagar, District Azamgarh. The description of the immovable property given in para '6' of the writ petition relate to some cash transactions made to the family member/relatives by the applicants/petitioner.
In paragraphs '3', '4' and '5' of the application, the applicant/petitioner states that he had executed a Will in favour of his nephew and daughter-in-law in the year, 2016 but the said Will has been revoked and a fresh Will has been executed in the year, 2016 on the pressure exerted by them.
Be that as it may, indisputably the dispute raised by the petitioner before the District Magistrate, Prayagraj (Allahabad), invoking provisions of Rule 21 and 22 of The Uttar Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules' 2014, is with regard to the ancestral property, situated in district Azamgarh.
A careful reading of Rule 21 as contained in Chapter V of the Rules, 2014 indicates that the District Magistrate has jurisdiction to perform all such duties and exercise such powers as mentioned in sub-rule (2) and (3) of Rule 21 within the territorial limits of the district within his jurisdiction. The language of sub-rule (1) of Rule 21 of Rules 2014 is clear and categorical in this respect. The duties of the District Magistrate enumerated in sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 also speak in the same language. For ready reference the Rule 21 is being reproduced hereinafter:-
"21. (1) The District Magistrate shall perform the duties and exercise the powers mentioned in sub-rule (2) and (3) so as to ensure that the provisions of the Act are properly carried out in his district.
(2) It shall be the duty of the District Magistrate to;
(i) ensure that life and property of senior citizens of the district are protected and they are able to live with security and dignity;
(ii) oversee and monitor the work of Maintenance Tribunals and Maintenance Officers of the district with a view to ensuring timely and fair disposal of applications for maintenance, and execution of Tribunals' orders;
(iii) oversee and monitor the working of old age homes in the district so as to ensure that they conform to the standards laid down in these rules and any other guidelines and orders of the Government;
(iv) ensure regular and wide publicity of the provisions of the Act, and Central and State Governments, programmes for the welfare of senior citizens;
(v) encourage and co-ordinate with panchayats, municipalities, Nehru Yuva Kendras, educational institutions and especially their National Service Scheme Units, organizations, specialists, experts, activists, etc working in the district so that their resources and efforts are effectively pooled for the welfare of senior citizens of the district;
(vi)ensure provision of timely assistance and relief to senior citizens in the event of natural calamities and other emergencies;
(vii) ensure periodic sensitization of officers of various Departments and Local Bodies concerned with welfare of senior citizens, towards the needs of such citizens, and the duty of the officers towards the latter;
(viii) review the progress of investigation and trial of cases relating to senior citizens in the district, except in cities having Divisional Inspector General of police
(ix) ensure that adequate number of prescribed application Forms for maintenance are available in offices of common contact for citizens like Panchayats, Block Development Offices, Tahsildar offices, District Social Welfare Offices, Collectorate, Police Station etc;
(x) promote establishment of dedicated Help lines for senior citizens at district headquarters, to begin with; and
(xi) perform such other function as the Government, may by order, assign to the District Magistrate in this behalf, from time to time.
(3) With a view to performing the duties mentioned in sub-rule (2), the District Magistrate shall be competent to issue such directions, not inconsistent with the Act; these rules, and general guidelines of the Government, as may be necessary, to any concerned Government or statutory agency or body working in the district, and expecially to the following;
(a) Officers of the State Government in the Police, Health and Publicity Department, and the Department dealing with welfare of senior citizens;
(b) Maintenance Tribunals and Conciliation Officers;
(c) Panchayats and Municipalities; and
(d)Educational Institution."
From a careful reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the District Magistrate, Prayagraj (Allahabad) has no jurisdiction to exercise any power under Rule 21 of the Rules, 2014 beyond the territorial limits of District Prayagraj (Allahabad).
In view of the above, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Prayagraj (Allahabad) showing inability to issue any direction with respect to the immovable property located in district Azamgarh cannot be said to suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction. As far as the movable property is concerned, all the transactions mentioned in paragraph '6' of the application are cash transactions as per own assertions of the petitioner. No opinion could have been expressed on the same.
No interference as such can be made.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.11.2020 Harshita