# Ishak v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 563 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2025-07-16 - **Case number:** Writ C No. 18408 of 2025 - **Bench:** Arindam Sinha, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ishak-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53596 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for protection of life and property of a senior citizen under Rule 21 of the U.P. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014, where the grievance relates to obstruction by neighbours in construction of a gate on his private property. HEADNOTE A. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, Sections 4, 5, 20, 21 - U.P. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014, Rule 21 - Scope - Jurisdiction of Maintenance Tribunal - Dispute regarding obstruction by private neighbours in 564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES construction of a gate by senior citizen - Held, the Act of 2007 and the Rules framed thereunder are intended to secure maintenance and welfare of senior citizens by children or relatives and do not extend to adjudication of disputes concerning ownership or enjoyment of property against third parties - Proper remedy lies before civil court. The petitioner, a senior citizen, approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking direction upon the police authorities to protect his life and property under Rule 21 of the 2014 Rules, alleging that his neighbours were obstructing construction of a gate on his property. It was contended that Sections 20 and 21 of the 2007 Act, read with Rule 21, obliged the State to ensure protection and welfare of senior citizens against any person causing distress to them. Held: The grievance of obstruction in construction on private property does not attract provisions of the 2007 Act or the 2014 Rules. The maintenance tribunals constituted under the Act have been empowered to entertain applications relating to claims for maintenance against children, or in case of a childless senior citizen against his relative who would inherit the property. There is no conferment of jurisdiction to adjudicate questions relating to property and ownership rights particularly where there is a dispute with third parties. Disputes in that regard are to be adjudicated before the Civil Courts of competent jurisdiction. Petitioner failed to show any infringement of legal right under the Act. Writ petition dismissed, with liberty to seek appropriate remedy as available in law. (Para 8, 9, 10) (E-5) CASE LAW CITED - None referred. LIST of Acts Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, Sections 4, 5, 20, 21). U.P. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014, Rule 21). KEYWORDS Senior Citizens - Maintenance - Welfare - Property Dispute - Jurisdiction of Maintenance Tribunal - Civil Remedy - Obstruction in Construction of gate - Article 226. CASE ARISING FROM APPEARANCES For the Petitioner : Akhilesh Kumar Singh For the Respondents : Mr. Gireesh Chandra Tiwari, Standing Counsel ## Text 7 All. Ishak Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 563 the petitioner as they are not impeaded as opposite party in the aforesaid proceedings. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that records of the Society was already placed but the same were not looked into by the District Judge. 8. In my view, since the application filed by the petitioner is itself not maintainable for want of necessary parties i.e. members of the society, the court below has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner be given liberty to move a fresh application after impleading all the necessary parties i.e. members of the society for redressal of their grievance as the members of the society were not made party in the earlier proceedings. It has also been prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner that society may be permitted to file evidence in support of that application. 10. In veiw of the prayer made by the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application for redressal of his grievance after impleading all the necessary parties i.e. members of the society. In case, such an application is moved by the petitioner, the same shall be considered and decided by the District Judge, Banda, in accordance with law, expeditiously after ensuring service upon all the respondents and after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned provided that there is no other legal impediment without being influenced by finding recorded in order dated 21.1.2025 passed by the District Judge earlier. ---------- (2025) 7 ILRA 563 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.07.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Writ C No. 18408 of 2025 Ishak ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Akhilesh Kumar Singh Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for protection of life and property of a senior citizen under Rule 21 of the U.P. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014, where the grievance relates to obstruction by neighbours in construction of a gate on his private property. HEADNOTE A. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, Sections 4, 5, 20, 21 - U.P. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014, Rule 21 - Scope - Jurisdiction of Maintenance Tribunal - Dispute regarding obstruction by private neighbours in 564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES construction of a gate by senior citizen - Held, the Act of 2007 and the Rules framed thereunder are intended to secure maintenance and welfare of senior citizens by children or relatives and do not extend to adjudication of disputes concerning ownership or enjoyment of property against third parties - Proper remedy lies before civil court. The petitioner, a senior citizen, approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking direction upon the police authorities to protect his life and property under Rule 21 of the 2014 Rules, alleging that his neighbours were obstructing construction of a gate on his property. It was contended that Sections 20 and 21 of the 2007 Act, read with Rule 21, obliged the State to ensure protection and welfare of senior citizens against any person causing distress to them. Held: The grievance of obstruction in construction on private property does not attract provisions of the 2007 Act or the 2014 Rules. The maintenance tribunals constituted under the Act have been empowered to entertain applications relating to claims for maintenance against children, or in case of a childless senior citizen against his relative who would inherit the property. There is no conferment of jurisdiction to adjudicate questions relating to property and ownership rights particularly where there is a dispute with third parties. Disputes in that regard are to be adjudicated before the Civil Courts of competent jurisdiction. Petitioner failed to show any infringement of legal right under the Act. Writ petition dismissed, with liberty to seek appropriate remedy as available in law. (Para 8, 9, 10) (E-5) CASE LAW CITED - None referred. LIST of Acts Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, Sections 4, 5, 20, 21). U.P. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014, Rule 21). KEYWORDS Senior Citizens - Maintenance - Welfare - Property Dispute - Jurisdiction of Maintenance Tribunal - Civil Remedy - Obstruction in Construction of gate - Article 226. CASE ARISING FROM APPEARANCES For the Petitioner : Akhilesh Kumar Singh For the Respondents : Mr. Gireesh Chandra Tiwari, Standing Counsel JUDGMENT (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.) 1. Mr. Firdaus Ahmad, learned advocate holding brief of Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Singh appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client seeks direction upon respondent no.2 to ensure his life and property as is said respondent's duty under Rule 21 of UP Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 20141. On query he submits, his client wants to construct gate on his property but private respondent nos.2 to 5 7 All. Ishak Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 565 are obstructing and holding out threats. His client is a senior citizen. 2. Mr. Gireesh Chandra Tiwari, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State. 3. On observations made, Mr. Ahmad, in addition to referring to Rule 21 of the Rules 2014, as aforesaid, also relies on Sections 20 and 21 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 20072 to submit that the provisions come to aid of senior citizens, not only against children and relatives but also against any one who causes distress to them. 4. We find petitioner is complaining of obstruction for constructing gate on his property. It is not a situation where petitioner requires discharge of duty by the administrative authority under Rule 21, to come to his aid. The rules have been promulgated for carrying out objects of the Act 2007. Section 20 the Act 2007 relates to medical support for senior citizens and Section 21 is in regard to measures for publicity, awareness, etc., for welfare of the senior citizens. The said provisions are in no manner relevant to the controversy involved in the present case. 5. The statement of objects and reasons given in the Act clearly say that due to withering of the joint family system, a large number of elderly are not being looked after by their family, as a consequence many older persons are forced to spend their twilight years all alone and are exposed to emotional neglect and to lack of physical and financial support. Taking into consideration that aging has become a major social challenge and there is need to give more attention to the care and protection for the older persons, the Act 2007 was enacted to provide for more effective provisions for maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens guaranteed and recognized under the Constitution and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 6. Section 4 of the Act 2007 provides for entitlement for maintenance to a senior citizen including parent who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning and out of the property owned by him against one or more of its children not being a minor and in the case of childless senior citizen against his relatives who would inherit his property. 7. In terms of Section 5 of the Act 2007, an application for maintenance under Section 4 may be made by a senior citizen or a parent, or, if he is incapable by any other person or organization authorized by him. The application is to be made before the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under Section 7. The Tribunal may also take cognizance suo motu. 8. The Act 2007 is primarily aimed to provide for ensuring effective provisions for maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens. The maintenance tribunals constituted under the Act have been empowered to entertain applications relating to claims for maintenance against children, or in case of a childless senior citizen against his relative who would inherit the property. There is no conferment of jurisdiction to adjudicate questions relating to property and ownership rights particularly where there is a dispute with third parties. Disputes in this regard are to be adjudicated before the Civil Courts of competent jurisdiction. 9. The present being a case where the grievance sought to be raised by the 566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES petitioner is regarding alleged obstruction by his neighbour in the construction of a gate on the petitioner's property, the same in our view would not come within the purview of provisions of the Act 2007. 10. Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate a legal right infringed as available under the Act 2007. The writ petition is dismissed. The dismissal will not prevent him from finding his remedy as may be available in law. ---------- (2025) 7 ILRA 566 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.07.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J. Writ C No. 18575 of 2025 Dcb Bank Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Shivang Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to whether the Additional District Magistrate/District Magistrate has the power to entertain and execute a fresh application under S.14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, when the borrower has illegally trespassed upon the secured asset after possession had been taken by the secured creditor. Headnotes The Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) - S.14 - Power of the District Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate to entertain fresh application - Enforcement of Security Interest - Continuing Validity of Orders under Section 14 - Once an order under S.14 is passed, it remains valid until the entire outstanding amount is recovered, unless recalled, reviewed, or set aside by a competent authority - Re-exercise of Power by District Magistrate - No prohibition under the SARFAESI Act against the District Magistrate or his delegate re-exercising powers to execute orders under S.14. Held: Court is "at consensus ad idem of the view taken by the Bombay High Court" regarding the power of the District Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate to entertain a fresh application under S.14 when the borrower illegally trespasses over the secured asset - Additional District Magistrate is directed to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh order on the fresh application under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act, in accordance with law - entire exercise shall be completed within two months by the respondent concerned - Petition was disposed of. (Paras 3,4,5) (E-7) Case Law Cited The Nashik Merchant Co-operative Bank (Multi State Scheduled Bank) v. The District Collector, Jalna & Ors., Bombay High Court; Bank of India v. M/s Maharana Electricals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., Bombay High Court; Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Bombay High Court; M/s Sri Balaji Centrifugal Castings v. M/s ICICI Bank Ltd., (2018) SCC Online Hyd 368; A.A. Kumaran v. Superintendent of Police, Thrissur & Ors., Kerala High Court, WP (C) No. 5875 of 2022; Smt. Mishri Bai w/o Late Shri Nirmal Kumar & Ors. v. Shubh Laxmi Mahila Cooperative Bank Ltd. List of Acts Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 List of Keywords SARFAESI Act - Fresh application - Restoration of possession - Secured asset - Illegal trespass - Rule of law - Enforcement of security interest - Re-exercise of power - Possession of secured asset.