Smt. Huma Hussain, Lko. Thru. Her Power of Attorney Holder Sri Vaseem Haider v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, New Delhi and 5 Others

Allahabad HC21 May 2026WRIC/5050/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Senior citizens sought protection of life and property under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and Rules, 2014. The Court held the protective provisions apply against third parties too, but authorities cannot adjudicate genuine title disputes. The District Magistrate was directed to file an affidavit explaining why protection was withheld.

What did the court decide?

Direction to District Magistrate, Lucknow to file affidavit within two weeks regarding protection; matter listed for 3.8.2026.

Smt. Huma Hussain, Lko. Thru. Her Power of Attorney… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 5050 of 2026

¶3

Smt. Huma Hussain, Lko. Thru. Her Power Of Attorney Holder Sri Vaseem Haider

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Ministry Of Social Justice And Empowerment, New Delhi And 5 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aishvarya Mathur Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Ratnesh Chandra, Shailendra Singh Chauhan

¶9

Court No. - 5

¶10

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

¶11

Heard Ms Aishwarya Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 2, 3 & 4 and Shri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel who has filed his vakalatnama today on behalf of respondent no. 5.

¶12

The petitioners who claim to be senior citizens have filed this petition seeking protection of their life and property under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2007') read with the U.P. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 2014').

¶13

We have perused the statement of objects and reasons leading to the Act, 2007. We have also perused the definition of 'property' as contained in Section 2-F & other provisions of the Act, 2007. On a reading thereof what comes out is, prima facie, Chapter II dealing with maintenance of parents and senior citizens obviously relates to a claim against the relatives, as defined in the Act, 2007, however, there are other provisions in the Act, 2007, such as, those contained in Chapter V under the heading 'Protection of Life & Property of Senior Citizens' which would be available even against third parties, who may not be relatives of the senior citizens, as, protection of such life and property in the scheme of the

¶14

WRIC No. 5050 of 2026

¶15

¶16

aforesaid Act is envisaged vis-à-vis such third parties also. We may in this very context refer to Section 22 which reads as under:-

¶17

"22. Authorities who may be specified for implementing the provisions of this Act

¶18

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.

¶19

2. The State Government shall prescribe a comprehensive action plan for providing protection of life and property of senior citizens."

¶20

We may also in this very context refer to Section 32 (2)(F) which vests the power upon the State Government to make rules providing for a comprehensive action plan, as referred in Section 22(2) for providing protection of life and property of senior citizens. The said provisions are not qualified to apply only to relatives. There is nothing in the scheme of the Act to give a restricted meaning to the aforesaid provisions, and in our understanding of the scheme of the Act, they are applicable to third parties also in the sense that if, the life and property of the senior citizen is threatened by a third party i.e. a person not a relative of the senior citizen, such rights are enforceable against such persons also. Rules have been framed under Section 32 by the State Government wherein an action plan has also been provided under Rule 22 thereof i.e. Chapter VI of the Rules, 2014.

¶21

Apart from laying down the duties of the District Magistrate in Rule 21, which are also referable to the substantive provision contained in Section 22(1) of the Act, 2007, how far the Rules are in tune with the substantive provisions contained in the Act or if something more is required to prepare a comprehensive plan is another matter. Of course, the scope of the powers to be exercised under the Act, 2007 and Rules, 2014, would have to be restricted where there is a genuine dispute pertaining to

¶22

WRIC No. 5050 of 2026

¶23

¶24

property with third parties, such as a claim of title, as in such cases, the authorities under the Act, 2007 may not be competent to adjudicate it, and it would have to be done by a Court of competent jurisdiction, as prescribed in law. But, if there is no dispute or it is a case of a sham dispute, the authorities will have the power to protect the life and property of the senior citizen.

¶25

Let the District Magistrate, Lucknow file his own affidavit in the matter positively within two weeks as to why, if there is no legal impediment, requisite protection has not been granted in terms of the Act, 2007 read with the Rules, 2014 to the petitioners, who are senior citizens. If there is any legal impediment, then he should inform the Court accordingly. He shall specifically inquire as to whether there is encroachment on petitioners property, and whether such dispute is pending in any Court or any other forum, as, if there is a genuine dispute, then possibly, his hands would be tied. But, if there is no such dispute and no other legal impediment, then he should see as to why such protection is not being extended.

¶26

List/Put up this case on 3.8.2026.

¶27

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)

¶28

May 21, 2026 J. K. Dinkar

¶29

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Huma Hussain, Lko. Thru. Her Power of Attorney Holder Sri Vaseem Haider v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, New Delhi and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Huma Hussain, Lko. Thru. Her Power of Attorney Holder Sri Vaseem Haider v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, New Delhi and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases