The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified a critical jurisdictional boundary under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, holding that applications for eviction of children from parental property must be filed before the Maintenance Tribunal presided over by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and not before the District Magistrate acting as an Appellate Authority. This ruling resolves longstanding confusion in procedural compliance and reinforces statutory structure.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Pushpa Devi and another, filed an application under Section 22(2) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before the District Magistrate, Hisar, seeking eviction of their children from a residential property allegedly occupied by them. The District Magistrate dismissed the application on 07.09.2021, holding that it was maintainable before him. The petitioners challenged this order before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, contending that the District Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate such eviction applications.
Key Facts
- The petitioners are senior citizens seeking eviction of their children from a residential property under Section 23 of the Act of 2007
- The application was filed before the District Magistrate, Hisar, on an unspecified date prior to 07.09.2021
- The District Magistrate dismissed the application on 07.09.2021 (Annexure P-1)
- The petitioners filed the writ petition on 21.04.2022 (CWP-2140-2022)
- The Government of Haryana, through Notification No. 10/20/204-DC/363250/1 dated 27.11.2014, had initially notified District Magistrates to exercise powers of eviction
- The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Simrat Randhawa v. State of Punjab (CWP-4744-2018), struck down the Action Plan dated 27.11.2014 to the extent it conferred eviction powers on District Magistrates, by order dated 23.01.2020
- The judgment in Simrat Randhawa was upheld and not stayed in LPA No. 702 of 2021 filed by the State of Haryana
- On 18.12.2023, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Gurdial Singh v. State of Punjab (CWP-27195-2023) held that only the Maintenance Tribunal (SDM) may pass eviction orders under Section 23 of the Act
- On 17.02.2023, the Government of Haryana issued instructions to all District Magistrates to cease proceedings on eviction applications
- The petitioners’ application was pending at the time of the 18.12.2023 judgment
Procedural History
- 07.09.2021: District Magistrate, Hisar, dismissed the petitioners’ application under Section 22(2) of the Act of 2007
- 21.04.2022: Writ Petition (CWP-2140-2022) filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court
- 08.04.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Kuldeep Tiwari
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners
- The application for eviction under Section 23 of the Act must be filed before the Maintenance Tribunal, which is headed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
- The District Magistrate functions only as an Appellate Authority under Section 22(1) and has no original jurisdiction to entertain eviction applications
- The 2014 Action Plan granting eviction powers to District Magistrates was struck down by this Court in Simrat Randhawa (23.01.2020)
- The 18.12.2023 judgment in Gurdial Singh explicitly directed that only Maintenance Tribunals (SDMs) may adjudicate eviction applications
- The District Magistrate’s order dated 07.09.2021 was therefore without jurisdiction
For the Respondents
- The District Magistrate, as the appellate authority under the Act, had inherent power to hear all applications under Section 22
- The petitioners had not exhausted alternative remedies
- The 2014 Action Plan was still partially operative in Haryana
- No formal notification had been issued by Haryana to transfer jurisdiction exclusively to SDMs
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the District Magistrate’s order dated 07.09.2021, a declaration that the District Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to entertain eviction applications, and a direction to transfer the application to the Maintenance Tribunal (Sub-Divisional Magistrate), Hisar, for fresh adjudication.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an application for eviction under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, must be filed before the Maintenance Tribunal (Sub-Divisional Magistrate) or whether it may be entertained by the District Magistrate acting as an Appellate Authority under Section 22.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the binding judgment in Gurdial Singh v. State of Punjab (CWP-27195-2023), delivered on 18.12.2023, which held that the 2014 Action Plan conferring eviction powers on District Magistrates was invalid and that only the Maintenance Tribunal, presided over by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, has original jurisdiction to pass eviction orders under Section 23. They further cited the 23.01.2020 judgment in Simrat Randhawa, which had already struck down the relevant clauses of the Action Plan. The petitioner argued that the District Magistrate’s role is strictly appellate under Section 22(1), and that the Act’s structure clearly separates original jurisdiction (Maintenance Tribunal) from appellate jurisdiction (District Magistrate). The petitioners also relied on the Government of Haryana’s circular dated 17.02.2023, which instructed District Magistrates to cease eviction proceedings.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the District Magistrate, as the designated Appellate Authority under Section 22(1), retained inherent jurisdiction to hear all matters arising under the Act, including eviction applications. It argued that no formal notification had been issued by the Government of Haryana explicitly transferring original jurisdiction to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and that the Gurdial Singh judgment pertained to Punjab and was not binding on Haryana. The State further submitted that the petitioners had not exhausted remedies by filing a review or appeal before the District Magistrate.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Section 22(1) vests appellate jurisdiction in the District Magistrate, while Section 23 provides for the power to pass orders for eviction, which the Act contemplates shall be exercised by the Maintenance Tribunal. The Court noted that the Act does not confer original jurisdiction on the District Magistrate to entertain eviction applications.
"As per the provisions of the Punjab Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007, District Magistrates are hand of Appellate Tribunals and SDM’s are head of Maintenance Tribunals, therefore, in view of Court Order dated 18.12.2023 all SDM's in the under state are requested to comply with the orders dated 18.12.2023 of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in letter and spirit."
The Court emphasized that the judgment in Gurdial Singh (18.12.2023) was not merely persuasive but binding as a Coordinate Bench decision of the same High Court. The Court further relied on its own earlier decision in CWP-22501-2021 (27.10.2025), which had explicitly held that eviction applications must be filed before the Maintenance Tribunal and not before the District Magistrate. The Court rejected the State’s argument that no formal notification had been issued by Haryana, noting that the Gurdial Singh judgment and the 17.02.2023 circular were sufficient to establish the legal position. The Court held that the District Magistrate’s order dated 07.09.2021 was passed without jurisdiction, as the application was not maintainable before him.
The Verdict
The petition succeeded. The Court set aside the order dated 07.09.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Hisar, and directed the Deputy Commissioner to transfer the original application to the Maintenance Tribunal, Hisar, presided over by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The Maintenance Tribunal is directed to decide the application afresh after affording a full opportunity of hearing to all parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Maintenance Tribunal on 30.04.2026 at 11.00 AM. The District Magistrate is directed to forward the application to the Maintenance Tribunal forthwith.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Eviction Applications Must Be Filed Before SDM, Not District Magistrate
- Practitioners must file all eviction applications under Section 23 of the Act before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Maintenance Tribunal), not the District Magistrate
- Filing before the District Magistrate will result in dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, regardless of the merits
- Any pending application before a District Magistrate must be transferred to the Maintenance Tribunal
Jurisdictional Clarity Is Now Binding Across Punjab and Haryana
- The Gurdial Singh judgment (18.12.2023) applies uniformly to both States, as the High Court has jurisdiction over both
- The 2014 Action Plan is no longer operative for eviction purposes in either State
- State circulars issued after the judgment (e.g., 17.02.2023) are confirmatory and do not create new law but reflect existing statutory mandate
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Courts will not entertain applications filed in the wrong forum, even if filed in good faith
- Petitioners must verify the correct forum before filing - failure to do so may result in delay and additional costs
- The earlier filing before the District Magistrate does not bar a fresh application before the Maintenance Tribunal, as confirmed in CWP-22501-2021
