A, Chini Ki Burj, Behind Bhujia Darwaja, Chowkri Sarhar, Jaipur v. Smt. Jamila W/o Late Chote Khan, By Caste Ranrej (Musalman) R/o House No

Judgment

1. Umardaraz Son Of Late Chote Khan, Resident Of House No. 562, Katputli Colony, Col. Brig. Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur Metropolitan, Rajasthan At Present Illegal Possession House No. 724-A, Chini Ki Burj, Behind Bhujia Darwaza, Chowkri Srahar, Jaipur.

2. Zarin Wife Of Umardaraz, Resident Of House No. 562, Katputli Colony, Col. Brig. Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur Metropolitan, Rajasthan At Present Illegal Possession House No. 724-A, Chini Ki Burj, Behind Bhujia Darwaza, Chowkri Srahar, Jaipur.

3. Umar Nisaz Son Of Umardaraz, Resident Of House No. 562, Katputli Colony, Col. Brig. Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur Metropolitan, Rajasthan At Present Illegal Possession House No. 724-A, Chini Ki Burj, Behind Bhujia Darwaza, Chowkri Srahar, Jaipur.

4. Shahnawaz Son Of Umardaraz, Resident Of House No. 562, Katputli Colony, Col. Brig. Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur Metropolitan, Rajasthan At Present Illegal Possession House No. 724-A, Chini Ki Burj, Behind Bhujia Darwaza, Chowkri Srahar, Jaipur. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16819/2019

1. Umardaraz S/o Late Chote Khan (Son), By Caste Rangrej (Musalman) R/o House No.562 Katputli Colony, Col. Brig. Bhawani Singh Road Jaipur Metropolitan Rajasthan At Present Illegal Possession House No.724A, Chini Ki Burj, Behind Bhujia Darwaja, Chowkri Sarhar, Jaipur

2. Zarin W/o Umardaraz (Daughter-In-Law), By Caste Rangrej (Musalman) R/o House No.562 Katputli [2025:RJ-JP:29529] (2 of 6) [CW-8990/2020] Colony, Col. Brig. Bhawani Singh Road Jaipur Metropolitan Rajasthan At Present Illegal Possession House No.724A, Chini Ki Burj, Behind Bhujia Darwaja, Chowkri Sarhar, Jaipur

3. Umar Nisaz S/o Umardaraz (Grandson), By Caste Rangrej (Musalman) R/o House No.562 Katputli Colony, Col. Brig. Bhawani Singh Road Jaipur Metropolitan Rajasthan At Present Illegal Possession House No.724A, Chini Ki Burj, Behind Bhujia Darwaja, Chowkri Sarhar, Jaipur

4. Shahnawaz S/o Umardaraj (Grandson), By Caste Rangrej (Musalman) R/o House No.562 Katputli Colony, Col. Brig. Bhawani Singh Road Jaipur Metropolitan Rajasthan At Present Illegal Possession House No.724A, Chini Ki Burj, Behind Bhujia Darwaja, Chowkri Sarhar, Jaipur ----Petitioners Versus

Smt. Jamila W/o Late Chote Khan, By Caste Ranrej (Musalman) R/o House No.724A, Chini Ki Burj, Behind Bhujia Darwaja, Chowkri Sarhar, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.L. Sharma Mr. N.K. Meena JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 01/08/2025 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8990/2020

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 28.01.2020 passed by the District Collector, by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 11.07.2019 passed by the [2025:RJ-JP:29529] (3 of 6) [CW-8990/2020] Sub-Divisional Officer has been rejected on the ground of non-maintainability under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, “the Act of 2007”).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application under Section 25 of the Act of 2007 was submitted by the petitioner against the respondents before the Court of Sub Divisional Officer. Counsel submits that the said application was partly allowed and the order of ejection of the respondents was passed, but the order was made conditional that the respondents would be allowed to continue to reside in the house of the petitioner, if they have no alternative house at Kathputli Nagar. Counsel submits that the respondents are having a house at Kathputli Nagar, hence, under such circumstances, there was no reason or occasion available with the Sub Divisional Officer to pass such conditional order. Counsel submits that feeling partly aggrieved by the aforesaid order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner under Section 16 of the Act of 2007 before the Appellate Authority i.e. District Magistrate, but the same was not decided on merits and was rejected on a technical count of non-maintainability. Counsel submits that as per the judgment passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Maya Devi and Ors. Vs. Vishweshawar Dayal and Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11941/2021), it has been held that the appeal by aggrieved person against the order of Sub Divisional Officer, is maintainable under Section 16 of the Act of 2007, hence, under these circumstances, the order passed [2025:RJ-JP:29529] (4 of 6) [CW-8990/2020] by the Appellate Authority is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and set-aside.

3. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner, but they are not in a position to controvert the aforesaid submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

5. This fact is not in dispute that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Maya Devi (supra) has held that the appeal submitted by the aggrieved person against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is maintainable under Section 16 of the Act of 2007 before the Court of District Magistrate.

6. Under these circumstances, the impugned order dated

28.01.2020 passed by the District Magistrate is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set-aside. The matter is remitted to the District Magistrate for disposal of the appeal on its merits. The appeal submitted by the petitioner is restored to its original number.

7. The parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Court on 11.08.2025.

8. It is expected from the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of appearance of the parties. [2025:RJ-JP:29529] (5 of 6) [CW-8990/2020]

9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16819/2019

10. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 11.07.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, by which the application submitted by the respondent under Section 25 of the Act of 2007 has been allowed and the order of ejectment of the petitioners has been passed.

11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is appeal-able under Section 16 of the Act of 2007 before the Court of District Magistrate, as this view has been taken by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Maya Devi (supra).

12. Considering the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal before the District Magistrate.

13. In case, such appeal is preferred by the petitioner within a period of one week from today, it is expected from the Appellate Authority to decide the said appeal along with Appeal No.17/2019 submitted by the respondent against the same impugned order before the District Magistrate. It is also expected from the District Magistrate to consolidate both appeals and decide the same by passing a common order. [2025:RJ-JP:29529] (6 of 6) [CW-8990/2020]

14. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. KuD/74 and 75 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J