Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hiralal vs Smt Bidami Devi on 25 September, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:41948]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16547/2024
1. Hiralal S/o Late Sh. Deeparam, Aged About 51 Years,
Residents Of Near Hotel Sujan, Nakash Gate, Nagaur,
Tehsil And District Nagaur (Raj.)
2. Mangilal S/o Late Sh. Deeparam, Aged About 56 Years,
Residents Of Near Hotel Sujan, Nakash Gate, Nagaur,
Tehsil And District Nagaur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Smt Bidami Devi W/o Late Sh. Deeparam, Residents Of
Near Hotel Sujan, Nakash Gate, Nagaur, Tehsil And
District Nagaur (Raj.).
2. Ghanshyam S/o Late Sh. Deeparam, Residents Of Near
Hotel Sujan, Nakash Gate, Nagaur, Tehsil And District
Nagaur (Raj.)
3. Ramesh S/o Late Sh. Deeparam, Residents Of Near Hotel
Sujan, Nakash Gate, Nagaur, Tehsil And District Nagaur
(Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harish Kumar Purohit
Mr. Shashank Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
Reserved on : 15/09/2025
Pronounced on : 25/09/2025
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners have
assailed the order dated 29.08.2024 (Annex.1) passed by the
District Magistrate, Nagaur, affirming the order dated 15.12.2020
(Annex.2) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagaur by which,
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 12:13:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41948] (2 of 11) [CW-16547/2024]
the application filed by respondent No.1 seeking maintenance as
well as eviction from the property was allowed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 filed an
application before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagaur,
under Section 9 read with Section 22 of the Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, "the
Act"), seeking maintenance from her four sons (the petitioners
and respondents Nos.2 and 3). She further prayed that she be
granted maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month and that
possession of her residential house and one shop be restored to
her.
2.1 The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, vide order dated 15.12.2020
(Annex.2), allowed the application and directed her sons to pay
maintenance of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.2,500/- each). The S.D.M. further
directed eviction from the house and the shop in question within a
period of 15 days.
2.2 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred
an appeal before the District Magistrate, challenging the order
only to the extent of eviction. The District Magistrate, vide order
dated 29.08.2024 (Annex.1), dismissed the appeal and upheld the
order dated 15.12.2020 passed by the S.D.M. Hence, the present
writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners advanced the following
submissions:
3.1 The petitioners are ready and willing to pay, and are in fact
paying, the maintenance amount. They confine their challenge
only to the direction of eviction from the shop, while expressing
readiness to hand (Uploaded
over possession of the residential house to
on 26/09/2025 at 12:13:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41948] (3 of 11) [CW-16547/2024]
respondent No.1.
3.2 Respondent No.1 does not run the shop in question, whereas
the petitioners are dependent upon the same for their livelihood.
Therefore, while she may take possession of the house, eviction
from the shop would not only affect petitioners' financial income
but would also cause undue hardship to them.
3.3 Respondent No.1 is under the influence of respondents Nos.2
and 3, and there is a likelihood of the property being transferred
in their favour.
3.4 There is no material on record to suggest that the petitioners
misbehaved with their mother, i.e. respondent No.1, or that denial
of possession of the shop would endanger her safety.
3.5 Subsequent to the order of the S.D.M., the brothers and
their mother entered into an agreement (Annex.6), whereby the
property stood divided amongst all the brothers.
3.6 The property in question was purchased by the father of the
petitioners, though in the name of their mother, and hence, the
property is ancestral property and the petitioners have equal right
over the property.
3.7 The provisions of the Act do not specifically contemplate
proceedings for eviction from premises owned or belonging to a
senior citizen. Hence, the S.D.M. lacked jurisdiction to pass an
eviction order. In support of these submissions, learned counsel
for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.4442/2025, decided on
27.03.2025].
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 12:13:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41948] (4 of 11) [CW-16547/2024]
On the strength of these submissions, learned counsel for
the petitioners prayed that the impugned orders be quashed and
set aside to the extent they direct eviction from the shop.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents made the
following submissions:
4.1 The writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioners have
already instituted a civil suit for partition before the competent
civil court.
4.2 The property in question was purchased by respondent No.1
herself and is, therefore, her self-acquired property.
Consequently, the petitioners have no legal right or claim over it.
4.3 The conduct of the petitioners towards respondent No.1 has
been unpleasant and humiliating, and they have failed to maintain
her properly. Owing to such behaviour, respondent No.1 was
compelled to approach the S.D.M. seeking maintenance and
eviction from the property.
4.4 Both the petitioners have constructed their own independent
houses in Nagaur City, yet they are forcibly occupying the self-
acquired property of respondent No.1.
4.5 The alleged agreement (Annex.6) does not bear the
signature of respondent No.1, and therefore, the petitioners
cannot derive any right or claim over the property on the strength
of such a document.
4.6 Section 22(2) of the Act explicitly provides that the State
Government shall put in place a comprehensive action plan for the
protection of the life and property of senior citizens. Accordingly,
the S.D.M. has not exceeded his jurisdiction in directing eviction.
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 12:13:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41948] (5 of 11) [CW-16547/2024]
4.7 Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit
[Civil Appeal No.10927/2023, decided on 02.01.2025].
On the strength of the above submissions, learned counsel
for respondent No.1 prayed that the writ petition filed by the
petitioners be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. Since the petitioners have confined their writ petition to the
extent of eviction from the shop, therefore, before parting with
the matter, it is considered appropriate to set out the relevant
provision of the Act and Rules as under:-
"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 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.
Rule 20. Duties and Powers of the District Magistrate.
(1) xxxxx
(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;
xxxx"
7. First, I propose to deal with the issue; as to whether the
property in question is self-acquired property of the respondent
No.1 or not?
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 12:13:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41948] (6 of 11) [CW-16547/2024]
7.1 A bare perusal of the material available on record clearly
reveals that the property in question is a self acquired property of
the respondent No.1. The petitioners could not deny the fact that
the property in question is indeed in the name of respondent no.1
however have submitted that the said property was purchased by
their father through his money in the name of the respondent
No.1, but nothing has been brought on record to establish this
fact. In absence of the same, it is thus, safe to assume that the
property in question is a self acquired property of the respondent
No.1.
7.2 Thus, it can also safely be held that the petitioners have got
no legally enforceable right to claim right over the property in
question, that too, when the competent civil court is seized of the
matter where the suit for partition has been preferred by the
petitioners, where the issue regarding their right to property will
be decided. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve on
the issue regarding their right to property, more particularly when
the civil suit is pending.
8. The next question that arises for consideration is whether
the S.D.M. had the jurisdiction to order eviction.
8.1 Section 22(1) of the Act empowers the District Magistrate to
authorize any officer subordinate to him to exercise all or any of
the powers and perform all or any of the duties conferred or
imposed under the Act, within such local limits as may be
prescribed. Section 22(2) of the Act further provides that the
State Government shall frame a comprehensive action plan for
ensuring protection (Uploaded
of theon life and property of senior citizens.
26/09/2025 at 12:13:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41948] (7 of 11) [CW-16547/2024]
Further, as per Rule 20 (2)(i) of the Government of Rajasthan
Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2010 (for
short, "the Rules of 2010") it is duty of the District Magistrate to
ensure that life and property of senior citizens of the district are
protected and they are able to live with security and dignity.
Further as per Rule 20(5) of the said Rules, in case of a danger
to life or property of a senior citizen, it shall be the duty of the
District Magistrate or an officer subordinate to him duly
authorized to protect the life and property of such senior
citizen.
8.2 In view of the above provisions, it is evident that the S.D.M.
was vested with the jurisdiction to entertain and decide an
application seeking protection of the life and property of a senior
citizen. Furthermore, the Act is a beneficial legislation enacted for
welfare of senior citizens and in the present matter, respondent
no.1 is an old widow lady therefore, the authorities below have
rightly decided the matter upholding the aims and objectives of
the Act.
8.3 In the present case, respondent No.1 has successfully
demonstrated that the property in question is her self-acquired
property, and the petitioners have no legally enforceable right or
claim over the same. While allowing the application filed by
respondent No.1, the S.D.M. recorded the following
observations:-
"izkFkhZ;k dk izkFkZuk i= o layXu nLrkostkr ,oa vizkFkhZx.k }kjk
izLrqr tokc izkFkZuk i= ,oa nksuks i{kksa }kjk nh xbZ nyhyksa dk
v/;;u fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ;k ds lkFk vizkFkhZx.k vk;s fnu ekjihV]
xkyh xykSp djuk] "kkSpky; Luku ik dHkh dHkkj rkyk yxk nsrs
gSA tks rax o ijs"kku djrs gS vkSj edku dk dCtk ugha NksMus ls
thuk gjke dj (Uploaded
fn;k oonchekjh
26/09/2025vkfn ij PM)
at 12:13:05 [kpkZ ugha nsrs gSA
[2025:RJ-JD:41948] (8 of 11) [CW-16547/2024]
vizkFkhZx.k toku gS rFkk O;ogkj ls Hkh mxz LoHkko ds yxrs gSA
U;k;ky; }kjk vkilh le>kbZ"k ds nkSjku Hkh vizkFkhZx.k vPNs
LoHko okys ugha gksdj vfM;y :[k viuk;s gq, FksA izkFkhZ;k
viuh bPNk ls viuh Lo vftZr lEifr vius iq=ksa dks ns ldrs
gSA tcjnLrh dkssbZ Hkh iq= vius ekrk&firk dh lEifr dks
tcjnLrh gMi ugha ldrk gSA dksbZ Hkh larku viuh ekrk dh
lEifr ls mudh lgefr fcuk ugha jg ldrs gSA tSlk fd
vizkFkhZx.k us izkFkhZ;k ds ?kj esa nqdkuks esa tcjnLrh jguk xSj
dkuwuh gSA blds fy;s izkFkhZ;k QkStnkjh eqdnek ntZ djkus ds
fy;s Lora= gSA izkFkhZ;k ,oa vizkFkhZx.k la[;k 1 ls 4 ds tokc ij
xkSj djus ij Hkj.k iks'k.k vf/kfu;e 2007 ekrk&firk o ofj'B
ukxfjd gksus ls izkFkhZ;k dk izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA
vizkFkhZx.k la[;k 1 ls 4 ghjkyky] ekaxhyky] ?ku";ke] jes"k dks
Hkj.k iks'k.k gsrq izR;sd 2500@& :i;s ds fglkc ls dqy
10000@& v{kjs nl gtkj :i;s izfrekg ds fglkc ls izR;sd
ekg dh 10 rkjh[k rd izkFkhZ ds [kkrs esa tek djok;saxsA izkFkhZ;k
cSad ikl cqd dh QksVks izfr vfHkdj.k esa is"k djsA
vizkFkhZx.k la[;k 1 ls 4 dks funsZf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ;k
dh Lo&vftZr [kjhn"kqnk tk;xk esa cus edku o nqdkuksa ls /kkjk
9 lifBr /kkjk 22 ds vUrxZr csn[ky fd;k tkrk gSA vizkFkhZx.k
15 fnol ds Hkhrj&Hkhrj izkFkhZ;k dk edku ,oa nqdkusa [kkyh dj
ns rFkk Hkfo'; esa izkFkhZ;k ds lkFk lqO;ogkj j[ksA fu.kZ; dh ikyuk
gsrq lacaf/kr Fkkukf/kdkjh dks rgjhj tkjh gksA"
8.4 A perusal of the order of S.D.M. reveals that the eviction was
ordered on the premise that respondent no.1 was harassed,
abused and denied basic amenities by her sons like bathroom. The
medical expenses of respondent no.1 were also not borne by her
sons. It was also noted that during mediation, the conduct of sons
was not amicable rather they came off as stubborn persons. Thus,
in view of the same, eviction was ordered from the premises
owned by the respondent no.1.
8.5. The District Magistrate also found no illegality or irregularity
in the order passed by the S.D.M. and accordingly upheld the
same. It also observed that vide order dated 13.02.2020, the
District Collector, Nagaur has entrusted its powers and duties
upon S.D.O. Nagaur in pursuance of Section 22(1) of the Act,
hence, S.D.M. had the jurisdiction
(Uploaded toatpass
on 26/09/2025 12:13:05the
PM) eviction order.
[2025:RJ-JD:41948] (9 of 11) [CW-16547/2024]
9. As regards the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel
for the parties, it is pertinent to note that those decisions pertain
to cases involving revocation of transfer of property by a senior
citizen. The said judgments have analysed as to whether eviction
can be ordered under Section 23 of the Act. Relevant observations
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are reproduced below:
In Urmila Dixit (supra)
"24. Before parting with the case at hand, we must
clarify the observations made vide the impugned order
qua the competency of the Tribunal to hand over
possession of the property. In S. Vanitha (supra), this
Court observed that Tribunals under the Act may order
eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the
protection of the senior citizen. Therefore, it cannot be
said that the Tribunals constituted under the Act, while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 23, cannot order
possession to be transferred. This would defeat the
purpose and object of the Act, which is to provide speedy,
simple and inexpensive remedies for the elderly."
In Samtola Devi (supra)
"31. The provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, nowhere
specifically provides for drawing proceedings for
eviction of persons from any premises owned or
belonging to such a senior person. It is only on account
of the observations made by this Court in S. Vanitha vs.
Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors that the
Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act may also order
eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the
protection of the senior citizens. The Tribunal thus had
acquired jurisdiction to pass orders of eviction while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Senior
Citizen Act which otherwise provide for treating the sale
of the property to be void if it is against the interest of the
senior citizen.
32. The aforesaid decision was followed by this Court in
Urmila Dixit (supra). However, even in the aforesaid
case the court has only held that in a given case, the
Tribunal ''may order'' eviction but it is not necessary
and mandatory to pass an order of eviction in every case.
The Appellate Tribunal has not recorded any reason
necessitating the eviction of Krishna Kumar or that in the
facts and circumstances of the case, it is expedient to
order eviction so as to ensure the protection of the senior
citizen."
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 12:13:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41948] (10 of 11) [CW-16547/2024]
9.1. It can be adduced from the above observations that the
Tribunal established under Section 7 of the Act indeed has the
power to evict however, such may be ordered considering the
peculiar facts and circumstances. Thus, the Apex Court has in no
manner denied the power to order eviction in the interest of senior
citizens however, it is pertinent to note that the bone of
contention in the above cases was Section 23 of the Act whereas
in the present case the said Section 23 of the Act has no role.
10. Coming on to the facts of the present case, as discussed in
the foregoing paras, the impugned order dated 15.12.2020
directing eviction has been passed on account of harsh behaviour
towards respondent no.1 and considering the demeanour of her
sons during proceedings before the S.D.M. Therefore, the said
order cannot be said to be arbitrary or without application of
mind. Further, so far as the issue of jurisdiction is concerned, it
has been held in the preceding paras that by virtue of Section
22(1) of the Act, the District Collector has delegated its powers
and duties upon S.D.O. vide order dated 13.02.2020 which
includes protection of property of the senior citizens as envisaged
under Rule 20 of the Rules of 2010.
11. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered view that upon consolidated consideration of Section
22 of the Act so also Rule 20 of the Rules of 2010 clearly
contemplates protection of the life and property of senior citizens.
Accordingly, both the authorities below were justified in ordering
eviction of the petitioners from the property in question, which has
already been held to be the self-acquired property of respondent
No.1. (Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 12:13:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41948] (11 of 11) [CW-16547/2024]
12. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court does not find any
illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders warranting
interference. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby
dismissed.
13. All pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
skm/-
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 12:13:05 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
