Allahabad High Court
RAM CHANDRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that notice to the private respondents was not necessary and directed respondent No.2 to consider the representation and restore possession if the petitioner’s claim is substantiated.
Summary
Ram Chandra, a senior citizen, alleged that his sons (private respondents 4 and 5) had driven him out of his house and filed a representation on 23 February 2026 with respondent No.2 seeking assistance. The court examined the petition and decided that it was not necessary to issue notice to the private respondents. It directed respondent No.2 to consider the representation and, if the allegations are verified, to restore the petitioner’s possession of the house. The petitioner was instructed to approach the office with a certified copy of the order to facilitate the application in the prescribed form. The writ petition was subsequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether notice to private respondents 4 and 5 is required in the proceedings
- Whether the court can direct respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's representation and restore possession if the petitioner is found to have been thrown out
Subjects
- senior citizen rights
- family dispute
- possession
- writ petition
- representation
- court direction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 10465 of 2026
Ram Chandra
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Brijesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.
1. Mr. Bachaspati Pandey, learned advocate holding the brief appears on behalf
of petitioner and submits, his client is parent and senior citizen. Private
respondent nos. 4 and 5 are his sons. They have driven him out of his house.
He made representation dated 23rd February, 2026 to respondent no. 2 seeking
assistance and relief. There be direction upon said respondent to consider the
representation.
2. Mr. Raj Mohan Upadhyay, learned advocate, Additional Chief Standing
Counsel appears on behalf of State and submits, the representation will be duly
dealt with. Petitioner must also apply in prescribed form.
3. We do not deem it necessary to notice private respondent nos. 4 and 5.
Instead, respondent no. 2 is directed to consider petitioner's said representation
dated 23rd February, 2026. Petitioner by himself or through authorized
representative will approach the office with certified copy of this order. Said
respondent might cause assistance to be rendered for making out the
application in prescribed form or may straightway act on the representation
itself. The allegations in the representation are to be verified upon noticing
private respondent nos. 4 and 5. Thereupon, if necessary, such action be taken
in accordance with law expeditiously. In event petitioner is found to be thrown
out of his house, his possession must be restored.
4.The writ petition is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha,J.)
(Satya Veer Singh,J.)
March 19, 2026
Jaswant
Digitally signed by :-
JASWANT KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…