Bombay High Court
Shobha D/O Shankarlalji Gupta vs Vijay Devidas Pandit And Others on 7 October, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:10355
0710WP4411-23.odt 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4411 OF 2023
Shobha Shankarlalji Gupta, Age-63 years, Occu-Nil,
R/o C/o Alok Gupta, Old Jalna Road, Deulgaon Raja,
District Buldana. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Vijay Devidas Pandit, Age-Major, Occu-Business,
R/o Khoreshwar Road, Deulgaon Raja,
District - Buldana.
2. Rajendra Shankarlal Gupta, Age-Major, Occu-Business.
3. Sharda Rajendra Gupta, Age-Major, Occu-Service.
Respondent Nos.2 & 3 R/o Old Jalna Road,
Deulgaon Raja, District Buldana.
4. The District Magistrate, District Buldana.
5. Sub-Divisional Officer, Tahsil Sindkhed Raja,
District - Buldana. RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Shri Amol Jaltare, Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Nilesh Kalwaghe, Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3.
Shri Alap Palshikar, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.4 and 5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
DATE ON WHICH THE ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD : AUGUST 23, 2025
DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED: OCTOBER 07, 2025
JUDGMENT
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent
of the learned counsels for parties.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.06.2023 passed by
the respondent no.4-District Magistrate, Buldana being the Appellate
Authority under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, 'the Act of 2007') by which the matter is
remanded to the respondent no.5-Sub-Divisional Officer, which is the
'Tribunal' under the Act of 2007.
0710WP4411-23.odt 2 Judgment
3. The petitioner is a senior citizen, who had filed an application against
the respondent seeking possession of the property alleged to be owned by
the petitioner, based on the document of Will executed by her father. The
petitioner's case is that her father had executed a registered Will-deed on
31.05.2000 and partitioned the property No.71 in Ward No.12, Old Jalna
Road, DeulgaonRaja thereby granting northern side portion to the petitioner
and southern side portion to the respondent no.2, who is her brother. The
petitioner raised her grievance by her application under Sections 21 and
22 of the Act of 2007 claiming possession of eastern portion of the northern
side land which came to the share of the petitioner. The respondent nos.2
and 3 opposed this application by contending that that although the
property was ordered to be partitioned at north and south side, by mistake
the parties were put in possession by dividing the property at eastern and
western side. The petitioner submitted that the possession of the eastern
side of the property be given to her, even by evicting the respondent no.1,
who is tenant of the respondent nos.2 and 3.
4. The application was resisted by the respondent nos.1 to 3. The
Sub-Divisional Officer, being the 'Tribunal' under the Act of 2007 allowed
the application of the petitioner and directed the respondent nos.1 to 3 to
handover possession of land as mentioned in the Will deed executed by
her father. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the respondent nos.1 to 3 filed
an appeal before the respondent no.4-District Magistrate which is the
Appellate Authority. On the basis of documents on record including the
spot inspection report prepared by the Talathi, the respondent no.4 passed
final order thereby observing that since the controversy is related to
partition and separate possession, the same needs to be adjudicated before
0710WP4411-23.odt 3 Judgment
the Civil Court and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh enquiry.
By the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of remand.
5. Shri Amol Jaltare, learned counsel for the petitioner primarily
contended that the petitioner is entitled for possession of eastern side
portion of the northern side of land as claimed in the application. He
submitted that in view of the protection granted to the senior citizens
under the Act of 2007, the protection be extended and the respondent
nos.1 to 3 should vacate the land and handover possession to her. In
support of his submissions, support is drawn from the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Urmila Dixit Versus Sunil Sharan Dixit &
Others [(2025) 2 SCC 787] and Single Bench judgments of this Court in
Chandiram Anandram Hemnani & Another Versus Senior Citizens
Appellate Tribunal/District Collector, Nandurbar & Others [2025(4)
Mh.L.J. 619] and Vimal Dagadu Kate & Another Versus State of
Maharashtra & Others [2025 LawSuit(Bom) 976]. on the basis of legal
position laid down in these judgments, it is submitted that the Act of 2007
is aimed at granting protection to the property of senior citizens and even
orders of eviction can be passed whenever warranted.
6. Per contra, Shri Nilesh Kalwaghe, learned counsel for the respondent
nos.1 to 3 and Shri Alap Palshikar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
the respondent nos.4 and 5 submitted that the controversy involved in the
matter is related to claim of the petitioner for possession over the eastern
portion of the property which involves eviction of the respondent no.1,
who is tenant of the respondent nos.2 and 3. They submitted that the
nature of controversy raised by the petitioner cannot be adjudicated
unless the parties lead evidence in the case. As such, it is submitted that
0710WP4411-23.odt 4 Judgment
the inferences drawn by the Appellate Authority that the controversy lies
in the domain of the Civil Court is appropriate and it is further submitted
that in view of this inference, there was no need for remanding the matter
to the Tribunal.
7. Rival submissions, thus, fall for my consideration.
8. While considering rival submissions, it has to be seen that the
petitioner has approached the Tribunal by invoking the provisions of
Sections 20 and 21 of the Act of 2007 which grant protection to the
property of the senior citizens. A perusal of the application filed by the
petitioner shows that the petitioner has claimed for possession of land
from the eastern portion of northern side of the plot, however, in the
application, there is a clear averment that the petitioner is residing on the
western side of the property. It appears that there is no dispute that the
petitioner as well as the respondent nos.2 are occupying their
respective portions based on the document of Will executed by their
father. The respondent nos.2 and 3 have also inducted the respondent
no.1 as tenant, who is occupying the area admeasuring 8X21 square feet
in the portion owned by them. The spot inspection was conducted by the
Talathi during pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal which
shows that the petitioner is occupying portion of land from the
western side to the extent of 22X56 square feet where she is residing
and the respondent nos.2 and 3 are occupying the remaining portion
admeasuring 22X50 square feet. As such, the controversy raised by the
petitioner claiming possession on the eastern side portion of northern
part of land belonging to her. The stand of the respondent that there was
mistake in occupying properties based on the Will-deed cannot be
0710WP4411-23.odt 5 Judgment
decided without adjudication of the rights of respective parties.
In view of the controversy involved, which is actually related to
partition and possession of the property, the parties are required to
approach the Civil Court. As such, having regard to the entire controversy,
the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority in the impugned order
appear to be reasonable and proper. It appears that only because the
petitioner is a senior citizen, she has taken recourse to the provisions of
the Act of 2007.
9. The Act of 2007 is aimed to provide protection to the person
and property of the senior citizens, however the controversy involved
in the instant case could not be conclusively decided on the basis of
mere assertions by the parties. Although the respondent no.4-Appellate
Authority has recorded its inferences about domain of the Civil
Court, however by passing the impugned order the matter is remanded to
the Tribunal. Though the respondents have raised objection with
respect to the direction of remand, I do not find any perversity with this
direction because the Tribunal constituted in accordance with the Act of
2007 is empowered to decide the claim for eviction from the property
of a senior citizen. As such, the Tribunal constituted under the Act
is required to give due consideration to all the relevant aspects raised
by both the parties and decide the application afresh. The position of law
laid down in the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner
is not disputed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the
instant case, it is appropriate to direct the Tribunal to consider the factual
aspects including the legal position of law laid down in the above
judgments.
0710WP4411-23.odt 6 Judgment
10. In view of the factual and legal aspects mentioned above, I do not
find any need to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of Article
227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition therefore deserves to
be dismissed and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
11. Considering the fact that parties to this case are senior citizens, it is
directed that parties should appear before the Tribunal within two weeks
from today and place on record copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is
directed to expeditiously decide the case and endeavour to decide it finally
within two months after the date on which parties appear.
12. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms. Rule stands
discharged.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
APTE
Signed by: Apte
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 07/10/2025 19:41:44
