1 2025:CGHC:2588 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4530 of 2024 1 - Smt. Revarani Saha Wd/o. Late Gopal Saha Aged About 79 Years R/o. Bodhghat Colony, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Additional Collector Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (R) Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) 4 - Kishore Saha S/o. Late Gopal Saha (Son Of The Petitioner) R/o. Atal Bihari Vajpayee Ward, Dharampura, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Narayani Saha W/o. Kishore Saha (Daughter In Law (Bahu) Of The Petitioner) R/o. Atal Bihari Vajpayee Ward, Dharampura, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) 6 - Smt. Punita Saha Wd/o. Late Praveer Saha (Grand-Daughter Of The Petitioner) R/o. Atal Bihari Vajpayee Ward, Dharampura, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) 7 - Amit Saha S/o. Kishore Saha (Grand-Son Of The Petitioner) R/o. Atal Bihari Vajpayee Ward, Dharampura, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.01.21 12:50:05 +0530 2 For Petitioner :Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate For Respondent/State :Mr. Praveen Das, Dy.A.G. For Respondent Nos.4 to 7 :Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Justice Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board 15/01/2025 1. In the present writ petition, the petition has prayed for following relief:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 20/06/2024 passed by the Respondent No. 2/Additional Collector Bastar in Revenue Case No. 202405151700006/16 year 2023- 24. (Annexure P-1) 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 04/04/2024 passed by the Respondent No. 3/Sub-Divisional Officer (R) Jagdalpur District- Bastar in Revenue Case No. 202305150300014/72 B-121 Year 2320-24. (Annexure P-2) 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to remit back to the Sub-Divisional Officer to decide it afresh after constituting the tribunal as per the provisions of law. 10.4 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents Nos. 4 to 7 to permit the petitioner to reside in her house and may kindly 3 restrain them to harass the Petitioner in any kind. 10.5 That any other order/writ/directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be made in the interest of justice 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner after the death of her husband, the petitioner was surviving on the pension and the rent which she used to receiving from her tenants who were living on the same property as tenants. Thereafter, the private respondent No.6/Punita Saha who is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner after knowing the fact about the financial status of the petitioner, entered into the house of the petitioner at night and thereafter she have started to harassing abusing and have assaulted the petitioner because of encroaching on the property of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner being senior citizen aged about 69 years after having nowhere to go, had filed an application under section 22 sub-rule 2 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before the respondent No. 3/Sub-Divisional Officer (R) for possession of her own house from the private respondents. The Respondent No. 3/Sub-Divisional Officer (R) being one member while discharging the functions of the Tribunal have carried out the proceedings and dismissed the application of the petitioner on merits. He submits that the respondent No. 2/Additional Collector instead of directing 4 the respondent No. 3 for deciding the application afresh after constituting the tribunal as per the law have also dismissed the appeal vide order dated 20/06/2024 by hearing the matter alone and not as tribunal on the ground that matter had to be filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal constituted State wise as per the notification dated 24/01/2009 F 1-1/2009/S W/26 and have been filed before the Respondent No. 3/Sub-Divisional Officer (R). 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the right of maintenance and welfare includes right over the property of the senior citizens and claim for eviction is inbuilt in the Act itself. He also submits that various High Courts have passed orders for eviction. He would further submit that there is concurrent finding recorded by both the Tribunals, therefore, there is no scope of interference by this Court while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. They have placed reliance upon the decision in the matter of Dr Mahabal Ram vs. Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Others, (1994) 2 SCC 401 along with other judgments on the ground that application was maintainable. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. In the matter of Dr. Mahabal Ram (supra), the relevant part of para-6 of the judgment reads thus:- "6. On the other hand, we are prepared to safeguard the interests of claimants who go before the Tribunal 5 by holding that while allocating work to the Single Member - whether judicial or administrative - in terms of sub- section (6), the Chairman should keep in view the nature of the litigation and where questions of law and for interpretation of constitutional provisions are involved they should not be assigned to a Single Member. In fact, the proviso itself indicates Parliament's concern to safeguard the interest of claimants by casting an obligation on the Chairman and Members who hear the cases to refer to a regular bench of two members such cases which in their opinion require to be heard by a bench of two Members. We would like to add that it would be open to either party appearing before a Single Member to suggest to the Member hearing the matter that it should go to a bench of two Members. The Member should ordinarily allow the matter to go to a bench of two Members when so requested. 6. The facts of decision of Dr. Mahabal Ram (Supra) is different from the issue involved in this case. 7. From the above discussion, it is quite vivid that despite notification issued by the State Government regarding constitution of the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal, the cases are being dealt by bureaucrats and no Tribunal has been constituted. 6 The issue goes to the root of the cause. The order passed by only Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and the District Collector are nullity as both the authorities are exercising powers of the Tribunal defeating the object of the Act. In my opinion, there is no need to discuss and decide the second issue when orders passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are without jurisdiction and void ab initio. 8. In the result, the order dated 04/04/2024 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jagdalpur, District Bastar in Revenue Case No. 202305150300014/72 B-121 year 2023-24 and the order dated 20/06/2024 passed by the respondent No.2/Additional Collector, Bastar, C.G. in Revenue Case No.202405151700006/16 year 2023-24 are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue),Jagadalpur, District Bastar, C.G. to decide the case afresh after constitution of the Tribunal in accordance with provisions of Section 7 of the Act and Notification dated 24.01.2009 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep