Justices Bibek Chaudhuri, Dr. Anshuman sets aside judgemengt by Exclusive Special Judge, NDPS Court No. II, East Champaran

In Manoj Yadav vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Bibek Chaudhuri and Dr. Anshuman delivered a 39-page long judgement dated May 11, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"89. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.....this Court deems it appropriate to observe that cases arising under the NDPS Act require strict adherence to the statutory safeguards prescribed under the Act. The investigating agency is expected to ensure scrupulous compliance of the mandatory procedural requirements relating to search, seizure, sampling and preservation of seized narcotic substances so as to maintain the sanctity and credibility of the prosecution case." It was heard along with Sheikh Amrullah vs. The State of Bihar (2026). The judgement also concluded:"91. The judgment of conviction, dated 14.05.2025 and the order of sentence, dated 19.05.2025, passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge, NDPS Court No. II, East Champaran, Motihari in NDPS Case No. 10 of 2024, arising out of Ramgarhwa P.S. Case No. 277 of 2023, so far as it relates to the present appellant Sheikh Amirullah, are hereby set aside." The judgement was authored by Justice Chaudhury. 

The criminal appeal was preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction dated May 14, 2025 and the order of sentence dated May 19, 2025 passed by the Exclusive Special Judge, NDPS Court No. II, East Champaran, Motihari in NDPS Case No. 10 of 2024, arising out of Ramgarhwa P.S. Case No. 277 of 2023. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court held the appellant along with co-accused persons guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 23 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fourteen years along with fine of Rs.1,00,000/ each. 

The appellant, namely Sheikh Amirullah, who was arrayed as accused no. 2 before the Trial Court, had assailed the judgment on the ground that the conviction was recorded without proper appreciation of the evidence on record and in complete disregard of the mandatory safeguards provided under the NDPS Act. The prosecution case arose out of an alleged recovery of charas of commercial quantity was said to have been made from the possession of the accused persons on July 5, 2023, leading to institution of the police case and subsequent trial culminating in conviction. Being aggrieved by the recorded findings of the Trial Court and the sentence imposed, the appeal was filed seeking interference of the High Court.

The prosecution case emerged from the written report of the informant and the evidence adduced during trial, was that on July 5, 2023 at about 19:30 hours, the informant, namely Indrajeet Paswan, who was then posted as Officer-in-Charge of Ramgarhwa Police Station, along with other police personnel, proceeded on patrolling duty from the police station. It was stated that while the police party was engaged in routine checking of vehicles near Bela Canal Chowk, two motorcycles were seen approaching from the side of Ramgarhwa market. One motorcycle was being driven by a single person, while on the other motorcycle, two persons were riding. On noticing the police party, the accused persons allegedly turned their motorcycles and attempted to flee towards the market side, which aroused suspicion. The police party immediately chased the motorcycles and succeeded in intercepting them near Semar Chowk. 

Upon interception, the persons riding the motorcycles were apprehended and their identities were ascertained. The person on the first motorcycle disclosed his name as Manoj Yadav, whereas the two persons on the second motorcycle disclosed their names as Suresh Prasad Kushwaha and Sheikh Amirullah, the appellant. Upon questioning regarding the articles carried by them, the accused persons allegedly became nervous and gave evasive replies. Thereafter, the police decided to conduct search of their persons as well as the bags allegedly carried by them.

According to the prosecution, before conducting the search, the accused persons were informed about their legal right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and it was alleged that they consented to be searched by the police party itself. Thereafter, the contraband articles were seized, seizure list was prepared at the place of occurrence, and the accused persons were taken into custody.

On the basis of the written report of the informant, a Ramgarhwa P.S. Case of 2023 was registered under the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act, and investigation was taken up. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons, whereafter cognizance was taken and the case was committed for trial. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons, whereafter cognizance of the offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 23 and 25 of the NDPS Act was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Exclusive Special Judge, NDPS, where it came to be registered as NDPS Case No. 10 of 2024. Charges were framed on June 19, 2024 against all the accused persons. The contents of the charges were read over and explained to them in vernacular, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined altogether six witnesses. Upon a careful reading of their cross-examination, it appears that these witnesses have not been able to furnish clear and consistent details regarding the manner in which the seized articles were handled after recovery. There is no definite evidence regarding sealing of the contraband at the place of occurrence, nor is there any clarity as to the procedure adopted for sampling. It also came on record that although public persons were present, none were made witnesses to the seizure and no explanation, except a general statement of refusal, was substantiated.

Justice Chaudhury observed: "29. Thus, the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the testimony of police witnesses and the documents prepared during investigation, without any independent corroboration with respect to the alleged recovery, search and subsequent handling of the seized contraband."

Justice Chaudhury added: "29. After referring to the earlier judgments, the Constitution Bench came to the conclusion that non-compliance with requirement of Sections 42 and 50 is impermissible whereas delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation will be acceptable compliance with Section 42. The Constitution Bench noted the effect of the aforesaid two decisions in para 5. The present is not a case where insofar as compliance with Section 42(1) proviso even an argument based on substantial compliance is raised there is total non-compliance with Section 42(1) proviso. As observed above, Section 43 being not attracted, search was to be conducted after complying with the provisions of Section 42. We thus, conclude that the High Court has rightly held that non-compliance with Section 42(1) and Section 42(2) were proved on the record and the High Court has not committed any error in setting aside the conviction order.

Upon hearing and upon consideration of the materials available on record, the following questions arise for determination in the appeal before the Division Bench: (i) Whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged contraband was recovered from conscious and exclusive possession of the appellant in the manner alleged? (ii) Whether the prosecution has complied with the mandatory requirements of Sections 42, 52A, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act in course of search, seizure, sampling and subsequent handling of the seized articles? (iii) Whether the prosecution has been able to establish a complete and reliable chain of custody with respect to the alleged seized contraband from the stage of seizure till forensic examination? (iv) Whether non-examination of seizure witnesses, non-production of seized contraband before the Court and the contradictions appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses create reasonable doubt in the prosecution case? (v) Whether the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Court can be sustained in the facts and circumstances of the present case?

The judgement reads: "60. The prosecution case rests entirely upon the testimony of official witnesses. Admittedly, no independent witness has been examined in the present case, although the prosecution itself asserts that several persons had assembled at the place of occurrence. The prosecution has sought to explain such non-examination by stating that public persons declined to become witnesses. However, except such bald assertion, no material has been brought on record to show that any sincere effort was made to secure participation of independent persons. 61. It further appears from the record that even the chowkidars, namely Nawal Kishore Rai and Raushan Kumar Patel, who according to the prosecution were present during the alleged search and seizure, have not been examined during trial. No satisfactory explanation has been furnished regarding their non-examination. In a case resting solely upon police witnesses, non-examination of such material witnesses assumes significance and creates doubt regarding fairness of the alleged recovery proceedings."

It has recorded: "66. The evidence on record further reveals serious infirmities with regard to seizure, sampling and preservation of the alleged contraband. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, though members of the raiding party, have not stated anything regarding sealing of the seized articles at the place of occurrence or drawing of samples at the spot. Their evidence is conspicuously silent regarding the manner in which the
seized contraband was preserved after seizure. 67. The evidence of PW-6, the Investigating Officer, assumes considerable importance in this regard. In paragraph 40 of his evidence, he has admitted that samples were not drawn at the place of occurrence. In paragraph 42, he has stated that he was not aware as to when and where the seized articles were sealed. He has further stated that samples were drawn on 15.10.2023, i.e., more than three months after the alleged seizure dated 05.07.2023....70. Another important aspect which cannot be ignored is that the prosecution has failed to prove preparation of inventory in accordance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act. There is no evidence to show that samples were drawn before a Magistrate or that any inventory was certified as required under law.....72. This Court also finds substance in the submission advanced regarding non-production of the seized contraband before the Court. The alleged seized article has not been produced and marked as material exhibit during trial. In
Vijay Jain vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 527 it has been held that failure to produce the seized contraband before the Court creates serious doubt regarding the prosecution case." 

Patna High Court's Division Bench upholds judgement by Justice Sandeep Kumar in a case against Maintenance Tribunal order

In Shailesh Kumar @ Azad & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary Co-operative Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha delivered a 17-page long judgement dated October 9, 2025, wherein, it upheld the 23-page long judgment by Justice Sandeep Kumar, the Single Judge of the High Court. It found that there there is no infirmity in the concurrent findings of the Maintenance Tribunal order dated March 14, 2020, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate in Senior Citizen Appeal order dated June 10, 2022, and the judgment dated January 29, 2024 by Single Judge. It dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal against the judgement of the Single Judge. 

The Division Bench affirmed the judgment by the Single Judge in Shailesh Kumar @ Azad & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Co-operative, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2022). The judgement of the Division Bench was authored by Justice Alok Kumar Sinha.  

The writ petition was filed for quashing of the order dated June 10, 2022 passed in a Senior Citizen (Misc.) Appeal by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Patna whereby the Collector had set aside the order of Chairman cum Sub Divisional Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna. The petitioner had prayed for issuance of direction in the nature of mandamus upon the respondents authority to not disturb the family of the petitioners as the petitioners are living along with their family members. The counsel for the appellants, submitted that the very initiation of proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the appellants are not “children” within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act, but nephews of the complainant senior citizen. 

The counsel urged that the property in dispute constitutes a joint family property, and issues of ownership, partition, and entitlement are already sub judice before the competent Civil Court. Despite this, the Maintenance Tribunal, in a summary proceeding under Section 23, assumed to decide complex questions of title and possession, which lie outside its limited statutory domain. The appellants defence and supporting documents, including the written reply, the registered family settlement deed, and the revenue receipts establishing possession, were disregarded, and the appellants were erroneously treated as mere licensees or permissive occupiers. It was also submitted that the interlocutory applications filed during pendency demonstrated the continuing prejudice suffered by the appellants due to the impugned orders. It was further contended that eviction or dispossession under Section 23 cannot be ordered mechanically, and the Tribunal is bound to act fairly and in consonance with statutory limitations. On these premises, it was urged that the orders of the Tribunal, affirmed by the Single Judge, were vitiated by jurisdictional error, disregard of material evidence, and misapplication of the Act, and therefore warrant interference in this LPA appeal. 

The counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the proceedings before the Maintenance Tribunal were fully within jurisdiction and in strict consonance with the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. It was argued that the appellants are in permissive occupation of the property, without any vestige of independent title, and cannot resist the lawful claim of the senior citizen. The Tribunal, by its order dated July 20, 2022, after due notice and hearing, recorded categorical findings that the senior citizen was entitled to recover possession and rent. It was also submitted that the so-called family settlement deed and revenue receipts carry no legal sanctity and were rightly disregarded. The subsequent affidavit and revenue entries, even if considered, did not confer any title, as eligibility and rights must be determined on the basis of settled ownership, not unilateral claims.

The Division Bench framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the learned Single Judge, in affirming the order of the Maintenance Tribunal dated March 14, 2020 and the Collector-cum-District Magistrate dated 10.06.2022, erred in law on the ground of alleged  violation of the principles of natural justice?
2. Whether the Maintenance Tribunal, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, acted within the statutory limits in directing eviction of the appellants from the property in question?
3. Whether the appellants’ asserted independent rights based on family arrangement, partition claims and revenue records can be adjudicated within the summary jurisdiction under “the 2007 Act” ?
4. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the beneficial object and mandate of “the 2007 Act” require sustaining the Tribunal’s order as affirmed by the learned Single Judge?

As to issue no. 1, the Division Bench found that the appellants had urged that the proceedings before the Maintenance Tribunal were conducted in breach of the principles of natural justice. It was contended that the Tribunal did not grant them sufficient opportunity to place their defence, that their written submissions and supporting documents such as revenue receipts and family arrangement were brushed aside, and that the Tribunal’s order dated March 14, 2020 proceeded in undue haste. It was further argued that the Single Judge, while dismissing CWJC No. 10426 of 2022 on January 29, 2024, failed to appreciate such infirmities. On the other hand, the record reveals that notices were duly served upon the appellants; they entered appearance, participated in the proceedings, and filed written replies together with annexures in support of their stand. The Maintenance Tribunal considered those submissions before passing a reasoned order of eviction on March 14, 2020. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Patna, upon hearing both sides, affirmed the same by order dated June 10, 2022 in Senior Citizen Appeal No. 01/2020–21. Thereafter, the Single Judge, by judgment dated January 29, 2024, independently examined the matter and dismissed the writ petition. 

Justice Sinha observed: "It is well settled that the essence of natural justice is fairness in action, not a ritualistic adherence to technicalities." He recollected that the Supreme Court in Union of India v. W.N. Chadha, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 260, observed that “the principles of natural justice cannot be put in a straitjacket formula; their applicability depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, and once a fair opportunity is afforded, the complaint of violation cannot be entertained.”

Justice Sinha also drew on Supreme Court's decision in Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, (2015) 8 SCC 519, the Court reiterated that natural justice is not an “unruly horse” but a
principle to ensure that no one is condemned unheard, and that what is required is “substantial fairness of procedure.” Where participation has been afforded and considered, the plea of denial fails.

The High Court's Division Bench applied the above principles to the present case. Its judgement reads:''it is evident that the appellants were heard at every stage. Their plea of denial of opportunity is belied by their own participation and submission of documents before both the Tribunal and the Appellate Authority. The learned Single Judge rightly recorded that the appellants sought to expand the limited scope of jurisdiction under “the 2007 Act" into a forum for deciding title and partition disputes, which is impermissible. Accordingly, we hold that no violation of principles of natural justice is made out.''

With regard to issue no. 2, the Division Bench observed that the order of the Maintenance Tribunal dated May 5, 2023, directing eviction of the appellants from the scheduled premises, was affirmed by the Appellate Authority on 10.06.2022 and by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated November 21, 2023. The appellants contend that the Tribunal travelled beyond the statutory limits of Section 23 of “the 2007 Act" by venturing into questions of ownership, partition, and title, which are matters pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court. It was urged that Section 23 only permits the Tribunal to annul transfers made subject to a condition of maintenance, and does not extend to ordering eviction or dispossession.

The counsel appearing for the respondent senior citizen submitted that “the 2007 Act" is a beneficial legislation and the Tribunal, being a statutory forum, is empowered to pass all consequential directions necessary to secure the residence, dignity, and peaceful possession of senior citizens. It was contended that the appellants, being nephews and not “children” within the meaning of Section 4, lack locus to resist the
proceedings. Their claim of joint ownership, if any, is a matter for the civil court, but cannot dilute the protective jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Reliance was placed on the Collector-cum-District Magistrate’s order dated 10.06.2022 affirming the Tribunal, and the Single Judge’s judgment dated November 21, 2023, upholding the same.

Justice Sinha observed: "we are unable to accept the appellants plea of jurisdictional excess. Section 23(1) of “the 2007 Act" provides that where a senior citizen transfers property subject to the condition of maintenance, such transfer shall be deemed void if the transferee fails to provide the same. The Supreme Court in Samtola Devi vs State of Uttar Pradesh SLP No. 26651 of 2023, para 31and para 32 states that “31. The provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, nowhere specifically provides for drawing proceedings for eviction of persons from any premises owned or belonging to such a senior person. It is only on account of the observations made by this Court in S. Vanitha vs.Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors that the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act may also order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizens. The Tribunal thus had acquired jurisdiction to pass orders of eviction while exercising jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Senior Citizen Act which otherwise provide for treating the sale of the property to be void if it is against the interest of the senior citizen. 
32.The aforesaid decision was followed by this Court in Urmila Dixit (supra). However, even in the aforesaid case the court has only held that in a given case, the Tribunal ‘‘may order’’ eviction but it is not necessary and mandatory to pass an order of eviction in every case. The Appellate Tribunal has not recorded any reason necessitating the eviction of Krishna Kumar or that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is expedient to order eviction so as to ensure the protection of the senior citizen.”

The Division Bench of the High Court relied on judgements of the Supreme Court. In its Judgment dated January 2, 2025 passed in Urmila Dixit Case-Civil Appeal No.10927 of 2024, the Supreme Court held that Tribunals under “the 2007 Act" are competent to direct eviction as an incident of enforcing statutory protection. In the recent case of Kamalakant Mishra vs. Additional Collector & Ors., the Supreme Court has reiterated that the Tribunal may direct for eviction where such relief is essential to give under “the 2007 Act".

The High Court's Division Bench observed: "In the present case, the Tribunal did not purport to adjudicate title, partition, or ownership, which remain pending before the civil court. Its direction of eviction was a necessary measure to restore possession and ensure the senior citizen’s right to live with dignity and security. The learned Single Judge, in affirming the Tribunal’s order, therefore, committed no error in appreciating the limited but effective jurisdiction conferred by Section 23. Accordingly, this Court holds that the Tribunal acted within its statutory mandate, and its order of eviction, having been affirmed by both the Appellate Authority and the learned Single Judge, does not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference."

With regard to issue no. 3, the High Court's Division Bench examined whether the appellants’ asserted  independent rights based on family arrangement and revenue records can be adjudicated within the Tribunal’s limited, summary jurisdiction under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007?  The appellants contended that their rights in the scheduled property flow from the family settlement deed and supporting revenue receipts, dated 19.12.2022. It was urged that these materials demonstrate an independent claim of ownership and that the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge erred in treating the appellants as mere permissive occupants. According to the appellants, their claim required adjudication in the proceedings under Section 23 of “the 2007 Act".

The respondents' counsel argued that proceedings under “the 2007 Act" are summary in nature and do not extend to adjudicating intricate questions of title, partition, or ownership. The appellants, being nephews and not “children” within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act, had no locus to resist proceedings before the Tribunal on the basis of alleged independent title. It was submitted that the proper forum for asserting such rights is the competent Civil Court, not the Maintenance Tribunal, whose jurisdiction is confined to ensuring protection of senior citizens’ property and residence.

Justice Sinha observed:"we find merit in the respondents’ submission. Section 23 of “the 2007 Act" is designed to safeguard senior citizens against neglect and to protect their possession and property where transfers are made subject to a condition of maintenance. The jurisdiction is protective, summary, and limited, and does not extend to resolving competing civil claims of title or partition. In the present case, the Tribunal correctly declined to adjudicate the appellants’ claim of rights under the alleged family arrangement and revenue entries, holding such matters to be beyond its scope. The learned Single Judge, by judgment dated January 29, 2024, also observed that the appellants were attempting to expand the summary proceedings under “the 2007 Act" into a substitute for civil litigation, which is impermissible. We accordingly hold that the appellants’ asserted independent rights, even if supported by documents such as family settlement or revenue receipts, are matters for adjudication by the civil court, and cannot be determined in proceedings under “the 2007 Act". The Tribunal and the learned Single Judge were correct in confining themselves to the statutory jurisdiction and in refusing to entertain these collateral claims."

As to issue no. 4, the High Court's Division Bench examined whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the beneficial object and mandate of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 require sustaining the Tribunal’s order as affirmed by the Single Judge.  The appellants urged that the Tribunal, by order dated March 14, 2020, travelled beyond the scope of Section 23 of the 2007 Act by directing their eviction from the scheduled property. It was argued that the Act is primarily intended to secure monetary maintenance and not to divest possession of property, and that the Single Judge, by judgment dated January 29, 2024, erred in treating the Act as a basis for dispossession. 

The counsel for the respondents submitted that “the 2007 Act" is a welfare legislation enacted with the avowed object of protecting senior citizens from neglect, harassment, and deprivation of their property. It was contended that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction must be construed purposively, so as to secure the right of senior citizens to reside peacefully and with dignity, and that eviction of unauthorized occupants is a necessary incident of that protection. Reliance was placed upon S. Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, (2021) 15 SCC 730, Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi, (2022) 1 SCC 705, as well as recent pronouncements of the Supreme Court dated January 2, 2025 in Urmila Dixit Case (Supra) and dated September 12, 2025 in Kamalakant Mishra Case.

Justice Sinha observed:''we find that the object of “the 2007 Act" is to ensure not only provision of monetary maintenance but also protection of life, dignity, and residence of senior citizens. Section 23 confers jurisdiction upon the Tribunal to declare void transfers of property where maintenance is not provided, and by necessary implication, to pass orders restoring possession and evicting unauthorized occupants where the continued occupation impedes the rights of senior citizens. In S. Vanitha case (supra), the Supreme Court emphasized that though the Tribunal cannot adjudicate intricate civil disputes, it is empowered to pass eviction orders where occupation of relatives or others frustrates the statutory mandate. Similarly, in Sudesh Chhikara case (supra), the Court held that proceedings under the Act are protective and must be interpreted purposively to secure effective relief for senior citizens.'' He recollected that the Supreme Court, in Kamalakant Mishra vs. Additional Collector & ors. SLP(CIVIL)D no. 42786 of 2025 delivered a judgment dated September 12, 2025, wherein, he reiterated that “Tribunals constituted under “the 2007 Act" may direct eviction where such relief is essential to give effect to the protection envisaged for senior citizens,” stressing that the statute would otherwise be rendered otiose. All these decisions underscore that the legislative intent is to provide real and effective protection to senior citizens against neglect or exploitation.

Relying on these principles, Justice Sinha concluded:''we are of the view that the Tribunal, in directing eviction of the appellants, acted squarely within the protective ambit of “the 2007 Act". The appellants, being nephews and not “children” under Section 4, have no statutory right to resist proceedings, and their alleged claims of co-ownership were rightly left to the civil court. The Tribunal’s order was necessary to secure the complainant’s right to peaceful possession of his residential property, and the learned Single Judge correctly affirmed that view by judgment dated 29.01.2024. Accordingly, we hold that the beneficial object and mandate of “the 2007 Act" require sustaining the orders of the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge. The appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.''

In the penultimate paragraph of the his judgment, Justice Sandeep Kumar had concluded:''6. From the prayer made in the Partition Suit, it appears that the petitioners have claimed only 18 paise share in the suit properties including the house in question" which was in the name of Rajendra Prasad, the respondent no.5. He added: ''The partition suit is yet to be decided. The petitioners by filing a suit cannot change the character of the property. The lease deed is in favour of respondent no.5 and unless and until the share of the petitioners is decided by a competent court, the house in question cannot be treated as a joint family property. Further, in the partition suit the petitioners have prayed for recovery of possession and therefore, it appears that the petitioners are not in possession of the property in question. The respondent no.5 being a senior citizen is being harassed by the petitioners by simply filing a Partition Suit and the claim of the petitioners is yet to be decided by the District Court. Therefore, I am of the view that merely by filing a Partition Suit, the house/property acquired and owned by the respondent no.5 cannot be interfered with by the petitioners."

Justice Kumar concluded:''27. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated 10.06.2022 passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Patna in Senior Citizen (Misc.) Appeal No.01 of 2020-21 cannot be interfered with as there is no infirmity in the same. This writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. The interim order dated 10.08.2022 is hereby vacated." The High Court's Division Bench has upheld the judgement.