"Disputes Relating to Ownership Rights Must Be Adjudicated Before Civil Courts": Allahabad High Court Denies Relief Under Senior Citizens Act in Private Property Obstruction Case
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Division Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava dismissed a writ petition seeking protection under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Court held that the grievance raised by the petitioner, involving obstruction by neighbours to the construction of a gate on private property, did not fall within the purview of the Act or its corresponding Rules. The Bench clarified that the petitioner had not demonstrated any legal right under the statute that had been infringed, and advised recourse through appropriate civil remedies.
The petitioner, identifying as a senior citizen, sought judicial direction against respondent authorities to ensure his protection under Rule 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014. He claimed that certain private respondents (numbered 2 to 5) were obstructing him from constructing a gate on his own property and were issuing threats. Through counsel Mr. Firdaus Ahmad, appearing for Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Singh, it was contended that the respondent authorities were obligated to safeguard the petitioner’s person and property pursuant to the statutory framework intended for senior citizens.
It was argued that the duty to protect life and property of senior citizens was embedded in Rule 21 of the 2014 Rules. Further reliance was placed on Sections 20 and 21 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, to argue that the statute's protections extended not only against family members or relatives but against any person causing harm or distress to senior citizens.
Upon judicial query, the petitioner’s counsel stated that the central grievance was obstruction by neighbours preventing construction of a gate. It was submitted that such obstruction fell within the statutory duty of the authorities to act in protection of senior citizens.
The Court addressed the statutory provisions raised by the petitioner and examined whether the dispute aligned with the objects of the 2007 Act and its enabling Rules.
The Bench noted: “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 judgment further clarified that the provisions invoked did not relate to property disputes between private parties: “Section 20... 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.”
The Court referred to the legislative intent of the 2007 Act, noting: “Due to withering of the joint family system, a large number of elderly are not being looked after by their family... 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...”
However, the Court held that the Act was specifically aimed at enabling maintenance and protection by children or relatives—not resolving general property disputes. “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.”
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s grievance was outside the statutory remit: “The present being a case where the grievance sought to be raised by the petitioner is regarding alleged obstruction by his neighbour... would not come within the purview of provisions of the Act 2007.”
The Court issued the following direction: “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.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Firdaus Ahmad, Advocate, holding brief for Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. Gireesh Chandra Tiwari, Standing Counsel
Case Title: Ishak v. State of U.P. and 4 Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:114698-DB
Case Number: WRIT - C No. 18408 of 2025
Bench: Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
