Manoj Kumar Gour S/O Shri Matadeen Sharma Vs Matadeen Sharma S/O Late Shri Bansidhar Joshi

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:49389]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17599/2025

¶4

Manoj Kumar Gour S/o Shri Matadeen Sharma, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 25, Bajrang Vihar, Murlipur Scheme, Jaipur (Raj)

¶5

Gulshan Kumar Gour S/o Shri Matadeen Sharma, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 25, Bajrang Vihar, Murlipur Scheme, Jaipur (Raj)

¶6

Bhagwat Gour S/o Shri Matadeen Sharma, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 25, Bajrang Vihar, Murlipur Scheme, Jaipur (Raj)

¶7

Smt Meena Sharma W/o Shri Bhagwat Gour, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 25, Bajrang Vihar, Murlipur Scheme, Jaipur (Raj)

¶8

----Non – Applicants / Appellants -Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

Matadeen Sharma S/o Late Shri Bansidhar Joshi, Aged About 80 Years, R/o Joshi Mohalla, Village Divrala District Sikar (Raj.) At Present Resident Of Plot No. 25, Bajrang Vihar, Murlipur Scheme, Jaipur (Raj)

¶11

-----Applicant / Respondent

¶12

Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Matadeen Sharma, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Plot No. 25, Bajrang Vihar, Murlipur Scheme, Jaipur (Raj)

¶13

Rakesh Kumar Gour S/o Shri Matadeen Sharma, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Plot No. 25, Bajrang Vihar, Murlipur Scheme, Jaipur (Raj)

¶14

----Non – Applicant / Proforma Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Jeetendra Tiwari with
	Mr. Yunus Khan &
	Mr. Brahm Kumawat
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order

04/12/2025

[2025:RJ-JP:49389]

[CW-17599/2025]

(2 of 4)

The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by learned District Collector, Jaipur, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed as non – maintainable.

¶23

Brief facts of the case are that the applicant - respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaipur City (South) under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for the sake of brevity to be referred as ‘Act of 2007’), seeking eviction of non – applicants / petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 and proforma respondents no. 2 and 3 i.e. his sons and petitioner No.4 i.e. his daughter-in-law, from his residence i.e. Plot No.25, Bajrang Vihar Colony, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur. The aforesaid complaint was allowed by the concerned Sub – Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 26.09.2025, directing the non – applicants / petitioners to handover the possession of the property to applicant-respondent No.1, within a period of 60 days from the said order. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 26.09.2025, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 16 of the Act of 2007 before the District Collector, Jaipur, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 16.10.2025 on the ground of maintainability.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon following judgments passed by this Court, wherein it has been held that even the children are entitled to maintain a petition under Section 16 of the Act of 2007.:-

¶25

1. Mahendra Singh v. Shri Dhanne Singh (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13396/2025);

(3 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:49389]

[CW-17599/2025]

2. Asha @ Muskan Ramrakhyani & Anr. v. Tarawanti Keswani (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12589/2024);

¶30

3. Smt. Jamila v. Umardaraz & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8990/2020) with other connected matter;

¶31

4. Kamaljeet Singh v. Ummed Singh Poonia & Anr. (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.471/2023);

¶32

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material made available on record.

¶34

Since, issue involved in the instant writ petition has already been settled by this Court declaring that the appeal under Section 16(1) of the Act of 2007 is maintainable, if the same is filed by the children or relatives, thus, the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 passed by learned District Collector, Jaipur in Case No.53/2025 (Senior Citizen Appeal) titled as Manoj Kumar Gour v. Matadeen Sharma, is not legally sustainable and consequently the same is quashed and set aside.

¶35

Accordingly, The matter is remitted back to the District Collector, Jaipur with a direction to decide the said appeal No.53/2025 filed by the petitioners, afresh on merits, strictly in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties, expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of furnishing certified copy of this order.

¶36

Both the parties are directed to appear before the District Collector, Jaipur on 15.12.2025.

[2025:RJ-JP:49389]

[CW-17599/2025]

(4 of 4)

Till final disposal of the appeal by the District Collector, Jaipur, the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 passed by Sub – Divisional Magistrate, Jaipur City (South) in Case No.64/2024, shall remain stayed.

¶41

The instant writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶42

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶43

(SANDEEP TANEJA),J

¶44

SAHIL SONI /28

Manoj Kumar Gour S/O Shri Matadeen Sharma v. Matadeen Sharma S/O Late Shri Bansidhar Joshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Gour S/O Shri Matadeen Sharma v. Matadeen Sharma S/O Late Shri Bansidhar Joshi

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

Shree Balaji Construction Company Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Sharma Enterprises Vs State of Rajasthan

Kunna Ram Punia S/O Bhanwara Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Om Prakash Gurjar S/O Shri Ranglal Gurjar Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Ravindra Singh Son of Shri Lakhan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Narendra Singh, Proprietor Ship Vs State of Rajasthan