DM Can Order Eviction Of Trespassers Upon Senior Citizen's Application Seeking Protection Of Life & Property: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court on Wednesday (August 7) observed that an application seeking eviction of the trespasser interfering in the peaceful possession of the senior citizen would be maintainable before the District Magistrates of Uttarakhand under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (“Act”).

Though the Act does not permit the senior citizen to file an application before the District Magistrate seeking eviction of the trespasser, however upon interpreting the Uttarakhand Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules 2011 (“Rules”), the court said that an application filed before the District Magistrate to ensure that the life and property of senior citizens is protected would empower the District Magistrate to even pass a direction to evict the trespasser.

“Thus, a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act, the Uttarakhand Rules and the views taken by various courts, this Court is of the firm opinion that the Act which empowers a District Magistrate to protect the life and liberty of the senior citizens also envisages a consequent power of 'eviction' to allow them to effectively implement the provisions of the Act. Such power to order 'eviction' is implicit in it and holding it contrary would frustrate the very purpose for which the Act was enacted. It is a settled principle of law that where an Act confers jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means as are essentially necessary for its execution.”, the bench comprising Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma said.

Section 22 (1) of the Act contemplates that the State Government may confer powers and impose duties on the District Magistrate for implementing the provisions of this Act and further empowers the District Magistrate to delegate powers conferred upon him, to his subordinate, while Section 22 (2) mandates that the State Government shall provide a comprehensive action plan for protecting the life and property of senior citizens.

Consequently, the State of Uttarakhand has framed The Uttarakhand Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011.

Rule 19 of the Uttarakhand Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011 imposes a duty on the District Magistrate to ensure that the life and property of senior citizens is protected. The said rules also do not specifically empower the District Magistrate to pass an order of eviction in order to protect the life and property of a senior citizen, however while applying a doctrine of harmonious construction the court said that “the term 'security and dignity' has to be understood in the light of the various objectives of the Act which are to strengthen the concept of social justice by ensuring that the elderly people live a fear-free life. Hence, the term 'security and dignity' is to be construed in wider terms and cannot be subjected to any limitations that may have frustrate the objective of the “Act”.

Therefore, the court held that the District Magistrate is also authorized to pass an order of eviction in an application filed seeking protection of the life and property of the senior citizen.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate rejecting the petitioner's application seeking eviction of the respondent no.2/trespasser for want of jurisdiction was set aside.

Appearance: Mr. Siddhartha Sah and Priyanka Agarwal, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, Standing Counsel for the State/ Respondent no. 1. Mr. Ramji Srivastava and Mr. Rajat Mittal, Counsel for the Respondent no. 2.

Case Details: Neena Khanna Versus State of Uttarakhand & Anr., Writ Petition No. 2582 of 2021 (M/S)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (UTT) 23

Click here to read/download the judgment