SURINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a senior citizen lady aged about 87 years who besides claiming protection of life and liberty has sought the right of dignified life of honour and have challenged order annexure P-6 dated June 22, 2016 whereby an appeal filed by her under Sec. 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007, for short 'the Act' before the District Magistrate was not decided on merits but was remanded back to the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The petitioner is mother-in-law of respondent No.4.

(2.) Brief facts as pleaded in the writ petition are that being a senior citizen, with an objective to live a life of dignity and honour and not mere animal existence at the fag end of her life, the petitioner seeks the protection as per Sec. 22, 23 and 32 of the Act. She claims to be in possession of her house situated in Village Nasipur near Punjabi University, Patiala situated in 15 bighas 17 biswas of land. She feels that her daughter-in-law, respondent No.4 in collusion with Mr. Gurinder Singh Dhillon, DIG, Punjab Police, wants to dispossess her and forcibly evict her from her house. The petitioner being harassed and humiliated by respondent No.4 who had made her life hell bereft of any human dignity, filed an application under Sec. 22 of the Act on Jan. 20, 2014. Copy of the application dated Jan. 20, 2014 has been appended as annexure P-3 before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patiala. Respondent No.4 filed reply to the petition taking up number of pleas. Petitioner claims that respondent No.4 had taken wrong and baseless pleas in the reply with an objective to prolong the matter on one pretext or other, as a result of which the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court to file CWP No. 8056 of 2015 for issuance of a direction to the SDM, Patiala to decide her case expeditiously. On May 15, 2015, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, sought telephonic instructions and stated that the case will be decided within a period of six weeks. Copy of the order dated May 15, 2015 has been appended with the petition as annexure P-4. The SDM dismissed the application filed by the petitioner vide order dated July 24, 2015 with an observation that respondent No.4 is in authorized possession of the property, therefore, application was not maintainable. The order dated July 24, 2015 passed by SDM, Patiala,- 0Sh.Gurcharan Singh Chahal, annexure P-5 was challenged before the Appellate Authority-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Patiala and the said order was set aside vide order dated June 22, 2016 and case was remanded back to decide the same afresh as per the rules. Copy of the order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Patiala has been appended with the petition as annexure P-6. The operative part of the order passed by the District Magistrate is reproduced hereunder:-

(3.) The order annexure P-6 has been challenged, mainly on the ground that it is a non-speaking order without giving sufficient reasons.