The Telangana High Court Monday dismissed a writ petition filed by a man against his 80-year-old father, and upheld the constitutional validity of rules that empower district collectors to order the eviction of children from the property of their elderly parents who complain of harassment, intimidation or unlawful occupation.
While observing that the case was “a sad reflection on the erosion of family values and respect for parents”, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin also held that the law must “not merely ensure expeditious relief to the aggrieved senior citizen but also send a clear message that harassment of aged parents at the twilight years will not be tolerated.”
The court was dealing with a writ petition challenging the validity of Rule 21(3) of the Telangana Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011.
The petitioner, a 44-year-old businessman from Adilabad town, argued that the district collector or the district magistrate lacked the statutory authority under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, to pass eviction orders.
From local complaint to Telangana HC
In 2023, the father lodged a complaint with the revenue divisional officer (RDO) alleging harassment and unauthorised occupation of the house, and seeking the eviction of the son. While early petitions were dismissed with orders for the son to care for his parents, the case intensified following an FIR against the son for physical assault and abuse.
After mediation failed and appeals were unsuccessful in the High Court, the RDO reopened eviction proceedings. The son moved the High Court again in December 2025, claiming that Rule 21(3), which allows such evictions, was ultra vires (beyond the powers) of the central Act.
The son contended that Rule 21(3) was inserted by a government order and conferred the power of eviction upon the district collector or district magistrate, who is an executive authority without judicial qualifications, and thereby amounts to an impermissible conferment of judicial power in violation of constitutional principles.
Story continues below this ad
He also argued that eviction disputes should be adjudicated by civil courts and cannot be entrusted to a single non-judicial member without safeguards of independence. He submitted that this rule was ultra vires (beyond the powers) of the 2007 Act.
The Government Pleader, as well as the counsel for the father, submitted that the writ petition was an abuse of process, filed after two unsuccessful rounds of litigation before the court, solely to delay eviction and frustrate the proceedings instituted by the senior citizen.
Protective and preventive power
Answering whether Rule 21(3) was unconstitutional on the ground that it confers judicial power upon a non-judicial authority, the bench held that the district magistrate, while exercising power under Rule 21(3), does not function as a substitute for the high court or as a permanent Tribunal vested with plenary judicial powers.
The bench noted that the authority acts under a welfare legislation for a limited statutory purpose to ensure the protection of the life and property of senior citizens. The proceedings, it said, were intended to provide expeditious relief to senior citizens who may otherwise be compelled to undergo protracted civil litigation.
Story continues below this ad
The bench cited Section 22 of the 2007 Act, which empowered the state government to confer such powers on the district magistrate to ensure that the provisions of the Act are properly carried out. It further noted that Section 22(2) of the Act mandates the prescription of a comprehensive action plan for the protection of life and property, and said the rule in question is traceable to this statutory mandate.
Noting that conferment of limited adjudicatory power upon executive authorities under social welfare legislation in neither novel nor constitutionally impermissible, the court held that the power to direct eviction was a protective and preventive power, exercised in a summary manner, to secure possession and enjoyment of property by a senior citizen, who is prima facie the lawful owner and who complains of harassment, intimidation, or unlawful occupation.
Regarding the petitioner’s contention that Rule 21(3) is ultra vires (beyond the powers) the parent Act, the court maintained that the 2007 Act is not confined to recovery of maintenance but also expressly deals with protection of life and property of senior citizen and that the Section 22 (2) obligates the state government to prescribe a comprehensive action plan for providing such protection.
The bench also held that the power to order eviction is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of a senior citizen, and that if a senior citizen is deprived of peaceful possession of his property by an abusive or non-maintaining child, the ability to secure the restoration of possession is an integral component of that protection.
Story continues below this ad
Petitioner prolonged litigation
On whether the writ petition amounted to an abuse of process of law, the bench noted that the petitioner, instead of complying with the court’s directions, and participating in the proceedings in their true spirit, chose to mount a constitutional challenge to the Rule itself at a belated stage, after suffering adverse orders.
The bench said he chose to file multiple interlocutory applications seeking a stay, an amendment, and suspension of orders, thereby prolonging the litigation. The bench held that the present writ petition is not a bona fide constitutional challenge but a collateral attempt to frustrate the statutory remedy invoked by an aged parent.
Dismissing the writ petition, the court ordered the revival of the proceedings against the petitioner and directed the district collector to conclude them in accordance with law, based on the material on record, within three months.
