# Smt. Sona Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 544
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-02
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 44386 of 2023
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Donadi Ramesh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sona-devi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51437
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constiution of India,1950Article 226-Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and
Rules 2014-Rule 21 & 22-petitioner being
a senior citizen alleged that her property
was under threat from private individual
(land mafia), she sought action against
him under the Act-Held, the court ruled
that the Act and rules do not extend to
dispute
against
private
individuals
unrelated to the senior citizen by blood or
inheritance-Complaints against third party
private persons such as land disputes
should be addressed through civil or
criminal
proceedings
under
relevant
procedural codes not under the Act-the
2 All. Smt. Sona Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
545
court found that the grievance does not
fall
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the
act,2007.(Para 1 to 15)

The writ petition is dismissed. .( E-6)

## Text

544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
In S.S. Balu and another v. State of Kerala
and others, 2009(2) SCC 479, the Apex
Court held that it is well-settled principle of
law that delay defeats equity. It is now a
trite law that where the writ petitioners
approaches the High Court after a long
delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to
them on account of delay and laches
irrespective of the fact that they are
similarly situated to other candidates who
have got the benefit. In Yunus v. State of
Maharashtra and others, 2009 (3) SCC
281, the Court referred to the observations
of Sir Barnesdelay Peacock in Lindsay
Petroleum Company v. Prosper Armstrong
Hurde etc., (1874) 5 PC 239 and held as
under:

Now the doctrine of laches in
Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or
technical doctrine. Where it would be
practically unjust to give a remedy either
because the party has, by his conduct done
that which might fairly be regarded as
equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his
conduct and neglect he has though perhaps
not waiving that remedy, yet put the other
party in a situation in which it would not be
reasonable to place him if the remedy were
afterwards to be asserted, in either of these
cases, lapse of time and delay are most
material.......Two
circumstances
always
important in such cases are, the length of
the delay and the nature of the acts done
during the interval which might affect
either party and cause a balance of justice
or injustice in taking the one course or the
other, so far as relates to the remedy.......

26. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case as well as
respectfully considering the judgments
cited at Bar, we find that in lieu of the
award entire compensation has been lifted
and even ceiling proceedings were also
finalised way back in early 1980s,
therefore, at this belated stage, any
challenge to the proceedings under the Act,
1965 or the Act, 1976 cannot be accepted.
The claim set up by the petitioner is highly
time barred and even on merits no case is
made out to grant any relief at this belated
stage.

27. In view of above, the writ petition
sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 544
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.01.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J.

Writ C No. 44386 of 2023

Smt. Sona Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Hari Om Sharan Tiwari, Sri Shrikant
Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constiution of India,1950Article 226-Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and
Rules 2014-Rule 21 & 22-petitioner being
a senior citizen alleged that her property
was under threat from private individual
(land mafia), she sought action against
him under the Act-Held, the court ruled
that the Act and rules do not extend to
dispute
against
private
individuals
unrelated to the senior citizen by blood or
inheritance-Complaints against third party
private persons such as land disputes
should be addressed through civil or
criminal
proceedings
under
relevant
procedural codes not under the Act-the
2 All. Smt. Sona Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
545
court found that the grievance does not
fall
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the
act,2007.(Para 1 to 15)

The writ petition is dismissed. .( E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,
J.
&
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Hari Om Sharan, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ambrish
Shukla, Additional Chief Standing Counsel
appearing for the State respondents and
perused the records.

2. The instant writ petition is filed
seeking writ of mandamus commanding
and directing the District Magistrate,
Prayagraj to take appropriate action on the
application
of
the
petitioner
dated
27.09.2023 as well as reminder dated
15.12.2023
under
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Rules, 2014 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Rules, 2014') within
stipulated period.

3. The petitioner is old woman, aged
about 62 years, and is fully protected under
the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents
and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act, 2007') read with the
Rules, 2014. She purchased a Plot No. 331,
area 249 hectares, situated in Dabhaon,
Pargana Arail, Tehsil Karchhana, District
Allahabad, through a registered sale deed
dated
05.03.2022.
Subsequently,
the
petitioner's name has been mutated in the
revenue record / khatauni in respect of
property in dispute. The petitioner, being a
bona fide purchaser of the said property, is
in continuous possession. Subsequent to
her purchase, one Bhoomafia Sushil Kumar
Srivastava, who is a property dealer, in
collusion with local police is trying to grab
the said land of the petitioner. When she
made an application / complaint on
27.09.2023 for redressing her grievance
before the respondent No.2, no action has
been initiated and the petitioner has made a
reminder
through
registered
post
on
15.12.2023. Despite her repeated requests,
the second respondent has not initiated any
action against the private respondent under
the provisions of the Act. The petitioner,
left with no option, has filed the present
petition.

4. Based on the above pleadings,
learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that in the identical situation, this
Court has passed the orders in Writ C No.
9417 of 2023, dated 24.03.2023 and Writ-C
No. 29663 of 2023, dated 18.09.2023. The
petitioner, being a senior citizen, aged
about more than 62 years, is fully protected
under the Act, 2007 read with the Rules,
2014.

5. According to Rule 21(2)(i) and
Rule 22(2) of the Rules 2014, the
respondent No.2 is duty bound to protect
the life and property of the petitioner but
the respondent No.2 had failed to initiate
action against the private respondent based
on the complaint made by the petitioner.
Hence, he requested for a direction to the
respondent No.2 to initiate action against
the respondent No.7 as per the provisions
of the Act, 2007 and the Rules, 2014.

6. Reply to the above said contentions,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of respondents has
taken an objection with regard to the
maintainability of the complaint made by
the petitioner under the Act, 2007. The
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
546 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has further brought to the notice of the
Court that the complaint made by the
petitioner on 27.09.2023 is against a private
person and the contents of the said
complaint cannot be adjudicated by the
authorities as per the provisions of the Act,
2007. For better appreciation, the same is
extracted below:-

that the complaint made by the petitioner
on 27.09.2023 is against a private person
and the contents of the said complaint
cannot be adjudicated by the authorities as
per the provisions of the Act. 2007. For
better appreciation, the same is extracted
below:-

"पुिः स्मरण प्राथािापत्र

सेवा में

श्रीमाि नजलानिकारी

 जिपद प्रयागराज।

नवषयः - प्रानथािी की बैिामा करायी हुयी जमीि में जबरि
हस्िक्षेप करके कब्जा करिे वालों के नवरुद्ध नशकायि के संबंि में।

महोदय,

सनबिय निवेदि है नक प्रानथािी सोिा देवी, पत्िी
नत्रभुवि नसंह निवास ददरी, िौगवा, ग्राम डभाव, परगिा अरैल,
िहसील करछिा, जिपद प्रयागराज की निवानसिी है, जो नक
लगभग 62 वषा की वृद्ध मनहला है। प्रानथा प्रानथािी िे वषा 2022 में
नदिांक 05.03.2022 को अपिे ही गााँव के राजकरि पुत्र मल्लू
राम से अपिे गााँव में भूनमिरी आराजी िं० 331 (लगभग 249
हैक्टेयर) जमीि का बैिामा कराया था, नजसमें प्रानथािी का िाम भी
राजस्व के अनभलेखों में दजा हो चुका है। नकन्िु भू मानफया सुशील
कुमार श्रीवास्िव, पुत्र वी०पी० श्रीवास्िव, निवासी मकाि ि०
1030, मुड्डीगंज, परगिा व िहसील- सदर, जिपद प्रयागराज के
है, जो नक प्रापटी डीनलंग का काम करिे हैं। इिके द्वारा प्रानथािी को
बैिामा कराये हुये प्लाट पर कब्जा िहीं लेिे नदया जा रहा है एवं
स्थािीय पुनलस की नमलीभगि से आये नदि प्रिानडि नकया जा रहा
है। महोदय जी को अवगि हो नक प्रानथािी िे नदिांक
27.09.2023 को एक प्रत्यावेदि आप के समक्ष व्यनक्तगि रूप
से प्रस्िुि नकया था, परन्िु भी िक उसमें कोई कायावाही िहीं की जा
सकी।

अिः आप से निवेदि है नक प्रानथािी एक वररष्ठ
िागररक एवं वृद्ध मनहला है। प्रानथािी की बैिामाकृि भूनम पर कब्जा
नदलाये जािे हेिु सम्बनन्िि अनिकाररयों को आदेनशि एवं निदेनशि
करिे की कृपा करें, साथ ही साथ सुशील कुमार श्रीवास्िव के नवरुद्ध
कािूिी कायावाही करिे हुए प्रानथािी को कािूि का उनचि संरक्षण एवं
सुरक्षा प्रदाि करिे की कृपा करें। आपकी महनि कृपा होगी।

नदिांक- 15.12.2023

प्रानथािी

सोिा देवी
पत्िी नत्रभुवि नसंह
निवासी ददरी, िौगवा, ग्राम डभांव,

परगिा अरैल, िहसील करछिा,
जिपद प्रयागराज।

संलग्िकः 1. बैिामा नदिांक 05.03.2022 की छायाप्रनि

2. प्राथािा पत्र प्रेनषि नदिांनकि 27.09.2023 की
छायाप्रनि।"

7. The learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel has further submitted that
the averments of the above paragraphs
would not attract the provisions of the Act,
2007. Here, the petitioner has made a
complaint against a private person who is a
land graber / land dealer, and is purely a
private dispute. Hence, the authority has no
power to entertain the complaint under the
provisions of the Act, 2007 and the Act,
2007 does not provide to deal with the
complaint against a private person.

8. Learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel further submits that the Act clearly
mandates the authorities / tribunal to
entertain
the
complaint
made
under
Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, 2007 except
that there is no provision in the Act, 2007
to initiate action against a private person.
2 All. Smt. Sona Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
547
Hence, the complaint made by the
petitioner is out of the jurisdiction of the
authority under the provisions of the Act,
2007 and also the Rules, 2014 made
thereunder.
Hence,
he
requested
for
dismissal of this writ petition.

9. We heard both the counsels for the
parties and perused the complaint made by
the petitioner.

10. Before proceeding further, it
would be appropriate to take note of
Statement of Objects and Reasons of the
Act, 2007 and the provisions of the Act,
2007
and
the
Rules,
2014
framed
thereunder, which are quoted as under :-

"Statement
of
Objects
and
Reasons:- Traditional norms and values of
the Indian society laid stress on providing
care for the elderly. However due to
withering of the joint family system, a large
number of elderly are not being looked
after by their family. Consequently, many
older
persons,
particularly
widowed
women are now forced to spend their
twilight years all alone and are exposed to
emotional neglect and to lack of physical
and financial support. This clearly reveals
that ageing has become a major social
challenge and there is a need to give more
attention to the care and protection for the
older persons. Though the parents can
claim maintenance under the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of
1974),
the
procedure is both timeconsuming as well as expensive. Hence,
there is need to have simple, inexpensive
and
speedy
provisions
to
claim
maintenance for parents.

2. The Bill proposes to cast an
obligation on the persons who inherit the
property of their aged relatives to maintain
such aged relatives and also proposes to
make provisions for setting up oldage
homes for providing maintenance to the
indigent older persons.

The Bill further proposes to
provide better medical facilities to the
senior
citizens
and
provisions
for
protection of their life and property.

3. The Bill, therefore, proposes to
provide for :

(i) appropriate mechanism to be
set up to provide need-based maintenance
to the parents and senior citizens;

(ii) providing better medical
facilities to senior citizens;

(iii) for institutionalisation of a
suitable mechanism for protection of life
and property of older persons; and

(iv) setting up of oldage homes in
every district.

4. The Bill seeks to achieve the
above objectives.

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.
548 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(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 organization authorized by
him; or

(c)
the
Tribunal
may
take
cognizance suo motu

Explanation.- For the purposes of
this section "organization" 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
proceeding 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 one 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 may 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
2 All. Smt. Sona Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
549
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.

6. Jurisdiction and Procedure.-
(1) The proceedings under Section 5 may
be taken against any children or relative in
any District -

(a) where he resides or last
resided; or

(b) where children or relative
resides.

(2) On receipt of the application
under Section 5, the Tribunal shall issue a
process for procuring the presence of
children or relative against whom the
application is filed.

(3) For securing the attendance
of children or relative the Tribunal shall
have the power of a Judicial Magistrate of
first class as provided under the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

(4)
All
evidence
to
such
proceedings shall be taken in the presence
of the children or relative against whom an
order for payment of maintenance is
proposed to be made, and shall be recorded
in the manner prescribed for summons
cases:

Provided that if the Tribunal is
satisfied that the children or relative
against whom an order for payment of
maintenance is proposed to be made is
wilfully avoiding service, or wilfully
neglecting to attend the Tribunal, the
Tribunal may proceed to hear and
determine the case ex parte.

(5) Where the children or relative
is residing out of India, the summons shall
be served by the Tribunal through such
authority, as the Central Government may
by notification in the
 Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.

(6) The Tribunal before hearing
an application under Section 5 may,. refer
the same to a Conciliation Officer and such
Conciliation Officer shall submit his
findings within one month and if amicable
settlement has been arrived at, the Tribunal
shall pass an order to that effect.

Explanation.- For the purposes of
this sub-section "Conciliation Officer"
means any person or representative of an
organization referred to in Explanation to
sub-section(1)
of
Section
5
or
the
Maintenance Officers designated by the
State Government under sub-section (1) of
Section 18 or any other person nominated
by the Tribunal for this purpose.

21.
Measures
for
publicity,
awareness, etc., for welfare of senior
citizens.-The State Government shall, take
all measures to ensure that -

(i) the provisions of this Act are
given wide publicity through public media
including the television, radio and the
print, at regular intervals;

(ii) the Central Government and
State Government Officers, including the
police officers and the members of the
judicial
service,
are
given
periodic
sensitization and awareness training on the
issues relating to this Act;

(iii)
effective
co-ordination
between the services provided by the
concerned
Ministries
or
Departments
dealing with law, home affairs, health and
welfare, to address the issues relating to the
welfare of the senior citizens and periodical
review of the same is conducted.

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
550 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 property of
senior citizens.

23. Transfer of property to be
void in certain circumstances. (1) Where
any
senior
citizen
who,
after
the
commencement of this Act, has transferred
by way of gift or otherwise, his property,
subject to the condition that the transferee
shall provide the basic amenities and basic
physical needs to the transferor and such
transferee refuses or fails to provide such
amenities and physical needs, the said
transfer of property shall be deemed to
have been made by fraud or coercion or
under undue influence and shall at the
option of the transferor be declared void by
the Tribunal.

(2) Where any senior citizen has
a right to receive maintenance out of an
estate and such estate or part thereof is
transferred,
the
right
to
receive
maintenance may be enforced against the
transferee if the transferee has notice of the
right, or if the transfer is gratuitous; but
not against the transferee for consideration
and without notice of right.

(3) If any senior citizen is
incapable of enforcing the rights under
sub-sections (1) and (2), action may be
taken on his behalf by any of the
organization referred to in Explanation to
sub-section (1) of section 5.

Rules 21 (1) of the Rules, 2014.-
(1) The District Magistrate shall perform
the duties and exercise the powers
mentioned in sub-rules (2) and (3) so as to
ensure that the provisions of the Act are
properly carried out in his district.

Rules 22 (1) of the Rules, 2014. -
(1) The District Superintendent of Police
and in the case of cities having Divisional
Inspector
General
of
Police,
such
Divisional Inspector General of Police
shall take all necessary steps, subject to
such guidelines as the Government may
issue from time to time for the protection of
life and property of senior citizens."

11. Based on the provisions of the Act
and Rules, the principles of statutory
interpretation
have
been
extensively
considered by this Court in Criminal Misc.
Application U/S 372 Cr.P.C. (Leave to
Appeal) No.329 of 2012 (Prithvi Singh v.
State of U.P.) in paragraph nos.10 to 22 and
40,
thus
the
same
are
extracted
hereinunder:-

"10. Before proceeding further it
would be appropriate to take note of the
principles of statutory interpretation as the
decision of the question involved in the
present case is directly dependant on the
interpretation of the statutory provisions.
For this purpose we have taken help of the
book
''Principles
of
Statutory
Interpretation' ''13th Edition, 2012' written
by Justice G. P. Singh (Former Justice of
M. P. High Court).

11. One of the main basic
principles of interpretation is that if
meaning of words of statute are plain, effect
must be given to it irrespective of
consequences.

12. In Nelson Motis vs. Union of
India, AIR 1992 SC 1981 it has been
observed that when the words of a statute
are clear, plain or unambiguous, i.e., they
are reasonably susceptible to only one
meaning, the courts are bound to give effect
to
that
meaning
irrespective
of
consequences.
2 All. Smt. Sona Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
551

13.
In
Kanailal
Sur
vs.
Paramnidhi Sadhu Khan, AIR 1957 SC 907
it was observed that if the words used are
capable of one construction only then it
would not be open to the courts to adopt
any other hypothetical construction on the
ground that such construction is more
consistent with the alleged object and
policy of the Act.

14. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs.
Vijay Anand Maharaj, AIR 1963 SC 946 it
was held that when a language is plain and
unambiguous and admits of only one
meaning no question of construction of a
statute arises, for the Act speaks for itself.

15. It is also a guiding rule of
interpretation that language of the statute
should be read as it is.

16. In Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg.
(Wvg.) Co. Ltd vs. Custodian of Vested
Forests, AIR 1990 SC 1747 it was observed
that the intention of the legislature is
primarily to be gathered from the language
used, which means that attention should be
paid to what has been said as also to what
has not been said.

17. In Raghunath Rai Bareja vs.
Punjab National Bank, (2007) 2 SCC 230
Supreme Court held that departure from the
literal rule should be done only in very rare
cases and ordinarily there should be
judicial restraint in this connection.

18. Insofar as rule of ''regard to
consequences' is concerned, the aforesaid
book clearly provides that this rule has no
application when the words are acceptable
to only one meaning and no alternate
construction
is
reasonably
open.
A
reference may be made in this regard with
citations noted above which provides that if
meaning is plain, effect must be given to it
irrespective of consequences.

19. In Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil
Mills and Ginning Factory vs. Subhash
Chandra Yograj Sinha, AIR 1961 SC 1596
it was observed that as a general rule, a
''proviso' is added to an enactment to
qualify or create an exception to what is in
the enactment, and ordinarily, a ''proviso' is
not interpreted as stating a general rule.

20. However, in Chapter 3 of the
aforesaid book at page 206 it has been
observed that the insertion of a ''proviso' by
the draftsman is not always strictly adhered
to its legitimate use and at times a section
worded as a ''proviso' may wholly or partly
be in substance a fresh enactment adding to
and not merely excepting something out of
or qualifying what goes before. A large
number of rulings, including the English
Law, have been noted in support of the
aforesaid observation. A reference in this
regard may be made to one of such rulings,
namely, Motiram Ghelabhai (deceased
L.R.) vs. Jagan Nagar (deceased L.Rs.) and
others, AIR 1985 SC 709.

21. Purposes of a ''proviso' were
aptly summarised in Sundaram Pillai vs.
Pattabiraman, (1985) 1 SCC 591, wherein
it was observed that by and large a proviso
may serve the following four different
purposes:-

"(1)
qualifying
or
excepting
certain
provisions
from
the
main
enactment;

(2) it may entirely change the
very concept of the intendment of the
enactment
by
insisting
on
certain
mandatory conditions to be fulfilled in
order to make the enactment workable;

(3) it may be so embedded in the
Act itself as to become an integral part of
the enactment and thus acquire the tenor
and colour of the substantive enactment
itself; and

(4) it may be used merely to act
as an optional addenda to the enactment
with the sole object of explaining the real
intendment of the statutory provision."

(emphasis supplied)
552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

22. However, it was observed in
the aforesaid book that the above summary
cannot, however, be taken as exhaustive
and ultimately a ''proviso' like any other
enactment ought to be construed upon its
terms.

40. As already noticed, the golden
rule of interpretation is that if the meaning
of words of a statute are plain, effect must
be given irrespective of the consequences.
We may refer to the judgments of the
Supreme Court in cases of Nelson Motis
(supra), Kanailal Sur (supra), Vijay Anand
Maharaj (supra), Gwalior Rayan Silk
(supra), Raghunath Rai Bareja (supra)."

12.

Taking
from
the
above
observations, though the learned counsel
for the petitioner has relied on Rule 21 (1)
and 22 (1) of the Rules, 2014 but on
perusal of the complaint in consonance
with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act, 2007,
which mandates the authority of the
Tribunal to decide the grievance of the
senior citizens from their legal heirs and
relatives, nowhere it has given power to the
authority to entertain a complaint against a
private person. Even Rule 22 (1) of the
Rules, 2014 has given powers to the
District
Superintendent
of
Police
/
Divisional Inspector General of Police to
take all necessary steps subject to such
guidelines as the Government may issue
from time to time for protection of life and
property of the senior citizens but there is
no specific Rule to entertain any complaint
against a private person.

13. In the instant case, no doubt, the
petitioner
being
senior
citizen
has
purchased the property in 2022 and the
complaint itself is moved against private
person stating therein that he is trying to
grab the subject property. If it is so, the
petitioner has other efficacious remedy
under the provisions of the Civil Procedure
Code and the Criminal Procedure Code but
not under the provisions of the Act, 2007.

14. In view of the backdrop of the
facts of this case, it appears that the
complaint made by the petitioner on
27.09.2023 does not fall within the
jurisdiction of the authority of the second
respondent under the provisions of the Act,
2007. Therefore, we hold that the complaint
made by the petitioner would not come
within the purview of the provisions of the
Act,
2007.
Consequently,
no
such
mandamus / directions as prayed for can be
granted.

15. Accordingly, the instant petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 552
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.01.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 1000394 of 2004

Girija Prasad Ojha ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
S.M Waseem, Diwakar Pratap Pandey, I.M.
Pandey
Ist,
Kripa
Shankar
Shukla,
Rameshwar
Tiwari,
S.M.
Waseem,
Smt.Usha Tiwari, Vidya Bhushan Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C, A. Kumar, Mayank Pathak, Ravi
Shanker Mishra, S.N.Goshwami, Sharad
Bhatnagar

A.Civil Law-Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Transfer of Property Act,1882-