wp7505.2025jud.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 7505 OF 2025 Dhiraj Virendra Gajwe Aged : 45 years, Occ.: Nil, R/o. Plot No.7, Pipla Fata, Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur ... Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra Though its Collector, Nagpur Dist. Nagpur 2 The Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagpur, Civil Lines, Nagpur 3 Smt. Sushila Virendra Gajwe Age : 82 years, Occ. Unemployed, R/o. Plot No.7, Bidipeth, Near the House of Dr. Nihate, Nagpur. ... Respondents Mr. Gaurav O. Gadge, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. C.A. Lokhande, AGP for respondent Nos.1 & 2/State. Mr. P.S. Wathore, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. RESERVED ON : 06.10.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 12.10.2026 JUDGMENT: Heard. (2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. PAGE 1 OF 6 2026:BHC-NAG:13634 wp7505.2025jud.odt (3) The present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, prays for setting aside the order passed by the Collector, Nagpur, in Appeal No.7/2005 passed on 07.07.2025 as also the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagpur, in Case No.25/MRC-81/2025 dated 21.01.2025. (4) The petitioner, who is the son of the respondent No.3, is the original non-applicant. The respondent No.3, who is the mother filed an application under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, before the Sub- Divisional Officer and the competent authority under the said Act. (5) In the said application, it was stated that the property in question bearing Plot No.7 at Mouza – Hudkeshwar, PHN 37, even though shown to be jointly owned has been purchased through her pensionary benefits and therefore, exclusively belongs to her. It was, therefore, stated that since the petitioner is creating obstruction for peaceful enjoyment of the said property an appropriate order be passed for granting her possession and the petitioner herein may be dispossessed from the said property. PAGE 2 OF 6 wp7505.2025jud.odt (6) The petitioner did not appear in the said proceedings and therefore, the matter was proceeded without his reply. The said competent authority passed an order on 21.01.2025, thereby directing if the petitioner herein raises any obstruction in peaceful enjoyment of the property of the respondent No.3, the said respondent No.3 will be at liberty to dispossess the petitioner. Further directions were also given to the concerned Police Station in terms of Section 11(2) of the Act supra. (7) Being aggrieved, the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the District Collector, Nagpur, in terms of Section 16 of the said Act. However, the said appeal also came to be rejected by the authority vide its order dated 07.07.2025. As stated supra, both these orders are impugned in the present petition. (8) I have heard Mr. Gadge, learned counsel for the petitioner as also Mr. Wathore, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Mr. Lokhande, learned AGP for the respondent Nos.1 & 2/State. (9) Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that PAGE 3 OF 6 wp7505.2025jud.odt the authorities below have failed to appreciate that the property in question did not exclusively belongs to the respondent No.3, but the petitioner was also a co-owner or rather a joint owner of the property. He further submits that being a joint owner, he had a right to reside in the said property. He, therefore, submits that the order is unsustainable in law and cannot be said to be legal and proper one. (10) Per contra, Mr. Wathore, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the order is perfectly legal and valid. He points me out reply filed in the present petition and states that the present petitioner is addicted to vices and therefore, is troubling his old aged mother for no reason. It is further submitted that the funds for purchasing the property in question was from the pensionary and retiral benefits of the respondent No.3 and therefore, even though, it bears the name of the petitioner as a joint owner, and the property her exclusive property. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition. (11) Additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioner stating that he is residing in a specific portion of the property comprising of an area admeasuring 396.97 sq. ft. (12) Thus, rival contentions for my consideration. It is an PAGE 4 OF 6 wp7505.2025jud.odt admitted position on record that the proceedings before the Sub- Divisional Officer i.e. the Competent Authority has virtually gone uncontested since the petitioner herein was not present in the proceedings. (13) As can be seen from the said sale deed placed on record, prima facie the petitioner is a joint owner of the property. However, it seems that the competent authority has not considered these documents in correct perspective. Therefore, the said authority has proceeded to pass an order as stated supra. It would be, therefore, in the fitness of things to relegate the matter to the competent authority i.e. the respondent No.2 to decide said enough in accordance with law. (14) As I have chosen to relegate the matter to the respondent No.2, various judgments placed by the learned counsel for the respective parties in support of their respective contentions are not being dealt with. (15) In that view of the matter, the following order is passed : (a) The writ petition is allowed. PAGE 5 OF 6 wp7505.2025jud.odt (b) The impugned order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the Collector, Nagpur, in Appeal No.7/2005, as also the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagpur, in Case No.25/MRC-81/2025, are hereby quashed and set aside. (c) The matter is relegated to the respondent No.2 for fresh decision in accordance with law after granting the parties an opportunity of hearing and placing such material on record in support of their respective contentions. (d) The parties i.e. the petitioner and the respondent No.3 to appear before the respondent No.2 on 21.10.2026 without there being a formal notice in that regard. (e) Needless to mention that this Court has not commented upon the merits of the matter and it would be for the respondent No.2 to decide the same in accordance with law. (16) With these directions, the petition is allowed and disposed of. [Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.] Prity PAGE 6 OF 6 Signed by: Mrs. Prity Gabhane Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 12/10/2026 17:59:46