Smt. Shamim Bano Vs Masiullah Khan

Masiullah Khan S/o Late Barkatullah Khan Aged About 68 Years R/o Block 8/a, Steet No. 05, Sector No. 01, Tehsil Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Milan Chowk, Hudko In Front Of Abcd Park, In Front Of House No. 229, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate

¶12

For Respondent : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶14

05.02.2025

¶15

1. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition challenging the legality, validity, and propriety of the order dated 20.09.2021, passed by the Court of Collector and Appellate Tribunal, District Durg, constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, the Act, 2007). The order was passed in Misc. Appeal Case No. 12/B-121/2020-2021, whereby the appeal

¶16

-2-

¶17

preferred by the petitioner was dismissed, and the order dated 29.06.2021, passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg, District Durg, in Revenue Case No. On-line-E-Court Regis. No. 20201110040081 A-74/2019-2020, was upheld.

¶18

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would fairly submit that the Collector, Durg, exercising the power of the Tribunal under the Act, 2007, passed the order dated 20.09.2021. He would contend that an application under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act, 2007 was moved by the father-in-law (respondent) before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, which was allowed on 29.06.2021. He further contends that the petitioner, being the daughter-in-law, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under the provisions of Section 16 of the Act, 2007, however, the appeal was dismissed by the Collector, who exercised the power of the Appellate Tribunal. He also submits that this Court, in the matter of Rajesh Yadav & Anr. v. Shyamlal Yadav , ( WP227 No. 217 of 2020 ), has dealt with a similar issue. He argues that the Collector cannot exercise the power of the Tribunal, as the Appellate Tribunal was not constituted in accordance with Section 15 of the Act, 2007.

¶19

3. On the other hand, Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that there are concurrent findings recorded by two authorities. He further submits that the respondent, being the father-in-law, has been ousted from his own house and has no alternative accommodation. He contends that since the Appellate Tribunal was not constituted in accordance with Section

¶20

-3-

¶21

15 of the Act, 2007, the Collector/District Magistrate was justified in exercising the power of the Tribunal, and the order is valid and proper.

¶22

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents, orders impugned and the provisions of the Act, 2007.

¶23

5. In the matter of Rajesh Yadav (supra), two issues were framed in paragraph 11, which are as follows:-

¶24

“11. There are two questions for consideration before this Court:-

¶25

i. Whether the orders have been passed by duly constituted Tribunals as contemplated in the Act itself?, and

¶26

ii. Whether the Tribunals below have rightly passed the orders for eviction holding the application moved by the respondent is maintainable? ”

¶27

6. This Court, after considering the provisions of Sections 7 and 15 of the Act, 2007, concluded that orders under the Act, 2007 can only be passed by duly constituted Tribunals.

¶28

7. In the present case, the order impugned was passed by the Collector, exercising the power of the Tribunal; therefore, the order passed by the Collector is not sustainable and is hereby quashed . The matter is remitted back to the Collector, Durg, to decide it afresh after the constitution of the Tribunal in accordance with Section 15 of the Act, 2007.

¶29

8. As the respondent is a senior citizen and has allegedly been ousted from his own house, it is expected that the concerned Tribunal shall conclude the appeal proceedings preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶30

9. The Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, is also requested to

¶31

-4-

¶32

look into the matter and take appropriate steps to constitute Tribunals strictly in accordance with Sections 7 and 15 of the Act, 2007, at all Taluka and District levels.

¶33

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶34

Nadim

Smt. Shamim Bano v. Masiullah Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shamim Bano v. Masiullah Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Saraswati Bai Vs Jayaswal Neco Ltd. and Ors.

Sm.T Nirmala Bai Vs Jayaswal Neco Ltd. and Ors.

T. Chandrashekharan Vs M/S Project Automobiles and Ors.

Amit Kumar Jain Vs Indusind Bank Limited

Smt. Resham Bai Vs Smt. Beena Bai and Ors.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Dr. D. Meshram