WPC/2135/2026 of SHAMIM SAJDARI Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 30 September 2026

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 12.03.2026 passed by respondent No. 2/Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), by which the application filed by the petitioners, senior citizens aged about 64 years and 74 years, the mother and father respectively of respondent No. 4 – Mehfooz Khan, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for brevity, Act of 2007) and the Chhattisgarh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 (for brevity, Rules of 2009), seeking removal of respondent No. 4 from possession of the land and house in question, has been decided. The concerned Collector has declined to pass an order in favour of the petitioners with regard to removal of respondent No. 4 from possession, stating that since the petitioners are having a separate house for their residence, in which they are residing, they cannot be granted relief under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Rules of 2009. The petitioners, have filed this writ petition, seking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 to take action and direct the respondent no. 4 to vacate the premise in question and hand over peaceful possession to the petitioners. 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioners together with cost of the petition.”

2. Facts of the case in brief is that the petitioners are senior citizens and are residing in their self-acquired house situated at Nayapara Kirtinagar, Sirgitti, Ward No. 11, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). On 30.10.2024 at about 3:00 p.m., respondent No. 4, without the knowledge of the petitioners, called the local Patwari and initiated the process of demarcation of the land. When petitioner No. 2 objected to the same on the ground that no prior information had been given to him, the Patwari left the spot. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 threatened the petitioners with dire consequences and to evict them from their house and also assaulted petitioner No. 2 with a brick. The petitioners thereafter approached the police authorities by filing a complaint, but no effective action was taken against respondent No. 4. Subsequently, respondent No. 4 allegedly took possession of the petitioners' house and continued to abuse and threaten them, compelling the petitioners to approach the Collector, Bilaspur and thereafter the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bilaspur, in his capacity as the Presiding Officer of the Maintenance Tribunal. As no effective action was taken by the concerned authorities, the petitioners approached this Court by filing WPC No. 205/2026, which was disposed of vide order dated 19.01.2026 with a direction to the Collector, Bilaspur to decide the application dated 23.09.2025 in accordance with law and the spirit of Rule 19 of the Chhattisgarh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, within a period of 30 days. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners approached respondent No. 2 on 27.01.2026 and brought the aforesaid order to his notice. However, respondent No. 2, while deciding the application, failed to consider the mandate of Rule 19 of the Rules of 2009, particularly the duty of the District Magistrate to ensure that the life and property of senior citizens are protected and that they are able to live with security and dignity. The petitioners, being old-aged persons with several health issues, are apprehending serious threat to their life, health and safety, particularly in view of the fact that petitioner No. 2 has already suffered and survived a heart attack and the conduct of respondent No. 4 has caused serious apprehension and insecurity to the petitioners.

3. Ms. Anushka Singh Chouhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, who are the parents of respondent No. 4, submits that the petitioners had filed an application before the Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.), alleging that respondent No. 4 had illegally occupied their land by getting his name entered therein and by obtaining an illegal lease/patta, whereas the land in question had been purchased by the petitioners through a registered sale deed. It is further submitted that respondent No. 4 had abused, assaulted and threatened the petitioners, on account of which they lodged a complaint before Police Station Sirgitti, Bilaspur (C.G.), but no action was taken against respondent No. 4 under the Act of 2007. She next submits that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing WPC No. 205/2026, wherein, after considering the allegation that the petitioners had been forcibly dispossessed from their house by respondent No. 4 and the fact that their application had not been considered by the Sub- Divisional Officer/Maintenance Tribunal, Bilaspur, this Court, vide order dated 19.01.2026, directed the Collector to decide the application within 30 days in accordance with law and in the spirit of the Rules of 2009. However, the concerned Collector, without considering the true aspect of the matter, dismissed the application merely on the ground that the petitioners were having a separate house in which they were residing. She further submits that the Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) has committed illegality in passing the impugned order without considering the relevant provisions of the Act of 2007 and the Rules of 2009. It is submitted that once an application under the Act of 2007 and the Rules of 2009 was filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer/Maintenance Tribunal, the said Tribunal was required to consider the application, enquire into the allegations and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is contended that, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the Collector ought to have ensured that the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Maintenance Tribunal considered and enquired into the matter and passed appropriate orders, whereafter the Collector, being the Appellate Tribunal, could have considered the matter in accordance with law. She also submits that the Collector has not considered the relevant provisions of the Act of 2007 and the Rules of 2009 and has erroneously dismissed the application merely on the ground that the petitioners, being senior citizens, are residing in an alternative accommodation. The mere availability of an alternative accommodation cannot disentitle the petitioners from seeking protection and appropriate relief under the Act of 2007 and the Rules of 2009, particularly when specific allegations of illegal occupation, abuse, assault, threat and forcible dispossession have been made against respondent No. 4.

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the concerned Collector has rightly decided the application, which does not call for any interference by this Court. He further submits that once it has been stated that the petitioners have an alternative accommodation, they cannot seek eviction of their son from the property in question. Accordingly, the order passed by the concerned Collector is justified and does not warrant any interference by this Court.

5. No one appears for respondent No. 4 despite service of notice upon him and despite the opportunity granted vide order dated 21.09.2026, whereby this Court had granted respondent No. 4 an opportunity to appear before this Court and make his submissions. However, when the matter was listed today, no one appeared on behalf of respondent No. 4. In view thereof, this Court deems it appropriate to decide the present petition without his submissions.

6. I have heard Ms. Anushka Singh Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, P.L. for the State and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection.

7. The Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has been enacted to provide more effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens guaranteed and recognised under the Constitution and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. In terms of Section 4 of the Act of 2007, a senior citizen is entitled to make an application under Section 5 of the said Act. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 2007 are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- “4. Maintenance of parents and senior citizens..- (1) A senior citizen

including parent who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or out of the property owned by him, shall be entitled to make an application under section 5 in case of-

(i) parent or grand-parent, against one or more of his children not being a minor;

(ii) a childless senior citizen, against such of his relative referred to in clause (g) of section 2.

(2) The obligation of the children or relative as the case may be, to maintain a senior citizen extends to the needs of such citizen so that senior citizen may lead a normal life.

(3) The obligation of the children to maintain his or her parent extends to the needs of such parent either father or mother or both, as the case may be, so that such parent may lead a normal life.

(4) Any person being a relative of a senior citizen and having sufficient means shall maintain such senior citizen provided he is in possession of the property of such senior citizen or he would inherit the property of such senior citizen: Provided that where more than one relatives are entitled to inherit the property of a senior citizen, the maintenance shall be payable by such relative in the proportion in which they would inherit his property.

5. Application for maintenance.- (1) An application for maintenance under section 4, may be made- (a) by a senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be; or (b) if he is incapable, by any other person or organisation authorised by him; or

(c) the Tribunal may take cognizance suo motu. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section organisation means any

voluntary association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860), or any other law for the time being in force.

(2) The Tribunal may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this section, order such children or relative to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of such senior citizen including parent and to pay the same to such senior citizen including parent as the Tribunal may from time to time direct.

(3) On receipt of an application for maintenance under sub-section (1), after giving notice of the application to the children or relative and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry for determining the amount of maintenance.

(4) An application filed under sub-section (2) for the monthly allowance for the maintenance and expenses for proceedings shall be disposed of within ninety days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person: Provided that the Tribunal may extend the said period, once for a maximum period of thirty days in exceptional circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing.

(5) An application for maintenance under sub-section (1) may be filed against one or more persons: Provided that such children or relative may implead the other person liable to maintain parent in the application for maintenance.

(6) Where a maintenance order was made against more than once person, the death of one of them does not affect the liability of others to continue paying maintenance.

(7) Any such allowance for the maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.

(8) If, children or relative so ordered fail, without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Tribunal may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person for the whole, or any part of each month’s allowance for the maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case be, remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made whichever is earlier:

Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Tribunal to levy such amount within a period of three months from the date on which it became due.”

8. As per Section 6 of the Act of 2007, a procedure has been prescribed according to which, primarily, the Maintenance Tribunal, i.e. the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), is required to consider and decide the matter by securing the attendance of the children or relatives and by taking evidence in the presence of the parties. The Tribunal is also empowered to refer the matter to a Conciliation Officer, who is required to submit his report within one month in case an amicable settlement is arrived at. In the event that no amicable settlement is arrived at, the concerned Tribunal, after taking evidence and recording reasons, is required to decide the application in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2007 and the Rules of 2009. Thereafter, if any party is aggrieved by the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, he/she has a remedy of appeal before the concerned District Collector, being the Maintenance Appellate Tribunal. The concerned Maintenance Tribunal is required to consider the matter not merely for the purpose of deciding the application in a cursory manner, but is under an obligation to conduct an enquiry into and decide the grievance raised by the senior citizens. The scope of the Act is not confined merely to maintenance, but extends to the welfare of senior citizens, which is required to be considered in a pragmatic manner while dealing with complaints made by senior citizens against their children or other relatives. In the present matter, though the application was filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)-cum- Maintenance Tribunal in accordance with the Rules of 2009, it appears that, as the application was not decided by the concerned Tribunal, the petitioners approached the concerned Collector, who also did not decide the matter. Consequently, the petitioners approached this Court, whereupon this Court directed the Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) to decide the matter in accordance with law, keeping in view the provisions of the Act of 2007 and the Rules of 2009.

9. The aforesaid direction did not mean that the concerned Collector was required to decide the matter on his own without following the procedure prescribed under the Act of 2007 and the Rules of 2009. The concerned Collector ought to have relegated the matter to the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer/Maintenance Tribunal, where the application was required to be adjudicated in accordance with Sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Act of 2007, after conducting an appropriate enquiry and taking evidence of the parties concerned. However, it appears that the matter was never adjudicated by the Maintenance Tribunal and the concerned Collector, without considering the aforesaid aspect, has decided the matter in a cursory manner merely on the basis of certain documents, which is contrary to the procedure contemplated under the Act of 2007 and the Rules of 2009.

10. The relevant provisions of the Chhattisgarh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, namely Rules 16, 17 and 19(2), clauses (1), (2) and (8), are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- “16. Registration and acknowledgment of appeal.- On receipt of an appeal, the Appellate Tribunal shall register it in a register to be maintained for the purpose in such form as the State Government may direct, and shall, after registering such appeal, give an acknowledgment to the appellant, specifying the appeal number and the next date of hearing, in Form ‘J’.

17. Notice of hearing to the opposite party.- (1) On receipt of an appeal, the Appellate Tribunal shall, after registering the case and assigning an appeal number, cause notice to be served upon the respondent under its seal and signature in Form ‘K’.

19. Duties and Powers of the District Magistrate. (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 to the district with a view to ensuring timely and fair disposal of applications for maintenance, and execution of Tribunal’s orders;

(viii) review the progress of investigation and trial of cases relating to senior citizens in the district, except in cities having a Police Commissioner;”

11. The Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) has considered only one aspect of the matter, namely, that the petitioners, being senior citizens, are having an alternative accommodation in which they are residing. Such consideration, by itself, cannot be treated as a ground to deny the relief sought by the petitioners, particularly when the Act of 2007 and the Rules of 2009 contemplate protection and welfare of senior citizens. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained.

12. Accordingly, the order dated 12.03.2026 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur-cum-Maintenance Tribunal to decide the application afresh in accordance with Sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Act of 2007 and other provisions contained therein, along with the Rules of 2009. The concerned authority shall conduct an appropriate enquiry, record the evidence of the parties and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, keeping in view the welfare and needs of the senior citizens and considering the matter in a pragmatic manner. The concerned authority shall also keep in mind the order passed by this Court in WPC No. 6077/2024. The relevant paragraphs of the said order are reproduced hereinbelow:-

12. The Supreme Court in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors., (2021) 15 SCC 730, while interpreting the provisions of the Act of 2007, recognized the statute as a social welfare legislation intended to protect the maintenance and welfare of senior citizens and observed that the remedies under the Act must be construed in a manner that furthers the legislative purpose of securing dignity, maintenance and protection to elderly parents and senior citizens.

13. Likewise, in Arun Kumar Nayyar v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2022) 6 SCC 629, the Supreme Court reiterated that the purpose of the enactment is to ensure that senior citizens are not left destitute, neglected or at the mercy of their children or relatives, and that the provisions of the Act must be implemented in a manner consistent with its beneficial object.

17. Further, in the matter of Kamalakant Mishra vs. Additional Collector and Others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2077, the Supreme Court emphasized that the provisions of the Act of 2007 must be construed in a manner that meaningfully protects the life, property and dignity of senior citizens, and upheld the authority of the Tribunal/Appellate Authority to secure eviction of children/legal heirs whose occupation had become detrimental to the senior citizens' peaceful enjoyment of their own property. The ratio emerging from the aforesaid decisions is that the power of the Tribunal cannot be reduced to a sterile power to merely award money; where the facts justify, the Tribunal can grant effective relief to secure the senior citizen's right to live peacefully and with dignity. Relevant para reads as under:- ‘7. The framework of the Act clearly notes that the law was enacted to address the plight of older persons, for their care and protection. Being a welfare legislation, its provisions must be construed liberally so as to advance its beneficent purpose. This Court on several occasions has observed that the Tribunal is well within its powers to order eviction of a child or a relative from

the property of a senior citizen, when there is a breach of the obligation to maintain the senior citizen. 2 In the present case, despite being financially stable, the respondent has acted in breach of his statutory obligations in not allowing the appellant to reside in the properties owned by him, thereby frustrating the very object of the Act. High Court fell in error in allowing the writ petition on a completely untenable ground.’

13. Since the matter relates to the welfare of the senior citizens/petitioners, they are directed to appear before the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)/Maintenance Tribunal on any date during the week commencing from 26.10.2026. The concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) shall, in turn, summon respondent No. 4 on an early date and conduct the enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2007 and the Rules of 2009 and decide the matter within a stipulated period, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further directed that the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)-cum-Maintenance Tribunal shall afford expeditious hearing to the parties and, if required, ensure service of summons upon respondent No. 4 within 10 days, whereafter the proceedings shall be continued on a weekly basis so that the matter may be decided expeditiously within the aforesaid period of two months. Since the matter concerns the welfare of senior citizens under the Act of 2007, the concerned authority shall accord due priority to the matter and make every endeavour to decide the same within the time frame prescribed by this Court.

14. As an upshot the petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 12.03.2026 passed by respondent No. 2/Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.), is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur-cum- Maintenance Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2007 and the Rules of 2009, after conducting an appropriate enquiry and affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju