Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2239 (RAJ)

Hukmaram v. State of Rajasthan

2019-08-20

DINESH MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to the order dated 30.05.2019, passed by the learned District Magistrate cum Appellate Tribunal, Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal') constituted under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2007') whereby the appeal filed by petitioner's wife-Gauran Devi (respondent No.6 herein) has been allowed. 2. The facts in brief relevant for the present purposes are that the petitioner being a Senior Citizen filed two applications under Sections 5 & 21 of the Act of 2007, one for claiming maintenance from his two sons and another for recovery of possession of the agriculture land belonging to him. 3. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh allowed the petitioner's application(s) by way of the order dated 11.10.2018 and directed the Tehsildar to hand over vacant possession of 2.656 hectare or 10.10 bigha of agriculture land (Khata No.80/67) to the petitioner. The operative portion of the order dated 11.10.2018 reads thus :- ^^vr% ÁkFkhZ gqdekjke iq= jkeyky mez 75 o"kZ tkfr HkkV fuoklh <k.kh pd 23 dsŒ,lŒihŒ fd'kuiqjk fn[kuknk gky viuk ?kj o`)k vkJe utnhd ,lŒchŒvkbZŒ cSad ds ikl guqekux<+ Vkmu }kjk ÁLrqr ÁkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 5 ekrk&firk ,oa ofj"B ukxfjd dk Hkj.k&iks"k.k vkSj dY;k.k vf/kfu;e 2007 Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS rFkk rglhynkj jktLo guqekux<+ dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd tekcanh pd 23 dsŒ,lŒihŒ [kkrk la[;k 80@67 esa ÁkFkhZ gqdekjke ds uke ls ntZ 2-656 fgLlk ;kfu 10-10 ch?kk d`f"k Hkwfe ls vfrØeh vÁkFkhZx.k la[;k 1 o 2 dks csn[ky dj dCtk ÁkFkhZ dks lqiqnZ fd;k tkosA rglhynkj guqekux< dks fu.kZ; dh lR;Áfr fHktokdj ikyuk fjiksVZ ,d lIrkg esa ryc dh tkosA i=koyh QSlyk 'kqekj gksdj nkf[ky n¶rj dh tkosA ;g fu.kZ; vkt fnukad 11-10-2018 dks esjs }kjk fy[kk;k tkdj [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA** 4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No.6 preferred an appeal under Section 16 of the Act of 2007. The appeal so filed by the respondent No.6 came to be allowed by the Appellate Tribunal by way of the order dated 30.05.2019 and the matter was remanded back to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh for decision afresh in accordance with law while keeping into consideration the provisions of the Act of 2007. 5. The appeal so filed by the respondent No.6 came to be allowed by the Appellate Tribunal by way of the order dated 30.05.2019 and the matter was remanded back to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh for decision afresh in accordance with law while keeping into consideration the provisions of the Act of 2007. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the appeal filed by the respondent No.6 was not maintainable, inasmuch as she was neither a party before the SDM nor was she aggrieved in any manner by the order dated 11.10.2018 passed by the SDM. 6. In considered opinion of this Court, Section 16 of the Act of 2007 is wide enough to permit the respondent No.6, who too is a Senior Citizen to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the SDM. The expression "any senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be aggrieved by an order of a Tribunal", used in Section 16 of the Act of 2007, clearly suggests that if any Senior Citizen, may be wife, feels aggrieved with the order passed by the Tribunal, can prefer an appeal. 7. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal filed by the respondent No.6 was competent and the learned Appellate Tribunal has committed no error of law in entertaining the same. 8. This Court is not inclined to entertain other contentions/arguments of the petitioner's counsel, keeping in view the fact that the Appellate Tribunal has simply remanded the matter to the SDM, Hanumangarh for decision afresh; any observation or order passed herein may affect rights of either of the parties. 9. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to exercise its supervisory power qua an order of remand impugned in the present writ petition. The writ petition is thus dismissed. 10. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.