Allahabad High Court
Smt.Sita Pati & Anr. vs State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. Home & ... on 30 September, 2019
Bench: Anil Kumar, Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 3 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 27276 of 2019 Petitioner :- Smt.Sita Pati & Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. Home & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard Sri Satish Kumar Misra, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Amitabh Rai, learned State counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and perused the record.
As the point involved in the present case is trivial in nature, with the consent of parties, the writ petition is heard and decided at the admission stage.
Accordingly, notices to respondent Nos. 5 & 6 are dispensed with.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioners are the owner of the land bearing Gata No. 949 measuring 0.175 hectare situated at Village Renduwa Palhari (Dewa), Tehsil Nawabganj, District Barabanki and respondent No. 6 in collusion with respondent No. 5 is interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioners . The petitioner No. 1 is senior citizen. In the facts the case to effect that litigation in W.P. No. 385 (Cons.) of 2010, between the parties is pending before this court and there is no order affecting the right of the petitioners, who are in possession of the property in dispute, and the petitioner No. 1 is about 80 years old, the protection by this court be provided.
The learned counsel for State pointed out that the grievance, as raised in the present writ petition, a senior citizen can be looked into by District Magistrate in exercise of his power under Rule 21 of U.p. maintenance and Welfare of parents and Senior citizens rules, 2014 made under the act known as Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the relevant Rule 21(2)(i)) is quoted below for ready reference :-
"Rule 21(2)(i) - ensure that life and property of senior citizens of the district are protected and they are able to live wityh security and dignity."
Thus, after hearing hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record, without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to petitioner No. 1 move a fresh representation before respondent No. 2/District Magistrate, Barabanki-Competent Authority within a period of two weeks from today for redressal of her grievances annexing all the relevant documents and materials and after receiving the same, respondent No. 2 shall consider and decide the same within a further period of four weeks thereafter in accordance with law and after hearing petitioners and respondent No. 6.
It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merit.
(Saurabh Lavania, J.) (Anil Kumar, J.) Order Date :- 30.9.2019 Ravi/