Mridul Mazumdar vs The State Of Assam And Othrs

Page No.# 1/11
GAHC010140662025

2026:GAU-AS:15405
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4190/2025
MRIDUL MAZUMDAR
S/O- LATE SURENDRA NATH MAZUMDAR,
PERMANENT R/O- H.NO- 31, ANIL NAGAR, RAJGARH LINK ROAD,
GUWAHATI-07, P.O- ULUBARI,
P.S- CHANDMARI, KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM.

PRESENT ADDRESS-
H.NO-C-04, KAVERI, TYPE IV, IGNOU RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX MAIDAN
GARHI, NEW DELHI-68
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006, ASSAM
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
ASSAM
ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTERS
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-07
ASSAM
3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
KAMRUP (M)
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-781036
4:THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
KAMRUP (M)
GUWAHATI

Page No.# 2/11
ASSAM
5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
CENTRAL ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-07
6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
ULUBARI CIRCLE OFFICE
GUWAHATI-07
7:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE
CHANDMARI P.S
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
8:MANIK MAZUMDAR
S/O LATE SURENDRA NATH MAZUMDAR

R/O- 2ND FLOOR
KRISHNA RESIDENCY
BYE LANE NO-9
SOUTH SARANIA
GUWAHATI
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
9:MRS. SHYAMOLI MAZUMDAR
W/O - MANIK MAZUMDAR

R/O- 2ND FLOOR
KRISHNA RESIDENCY
BYE LANE NO-9
SOUTH SARANIA
GUWAHATI
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
10:MUKUT MAZUMDAR
S/O LATE SURENDRA NATH MAZUMDAR

C/O KALPANA BARMAN(ADO)
AGRICULTURE COLONY (NEAR KRISHI BHAVAN)
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-781022
DIST-KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM

Page No.# 3/11
CONTACT NO.7099574225
11:MRS. KALPANA BARMAN
W/O- MUKUT MAZUMDAR

C/O- KALPANA BARMAN (ADO)
AGRICULTURE COLONY (NEAR KRISHI BHAWAN)
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-22
KAMRUP (M)
ASSA

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Roy, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. J. Handique, Govt. Advocate
Mr. N. Barman, Advocate



· Date on which Judgment was reserved : NA
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 12.10.2026
·
· Whether the pronouncement is of
the Operative Part of the Judgment : NA

· Whether the full Judgment has been
Pronounced : Yes
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. S.K. Roy, the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Mr. J.
Handique, the learned Government Advocate, appears on behalf of
the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and Mr. N. Barman, the learned
counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 8 to 11.

Page No.# 4/11
2. The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the inaction on the part
of the official Respondents in taking steps in terms with the FIR
dated 22.01.2025 lodged before Chandmari Police Station as well
as the complaint dated 18.02.2025 made to the Director General of
Police, Assam. The Petitioner had also submitted a representation
dated 03.03.2025 to the District Commissioner, Kamrup (M) by
email, which according to the Petitioner has not been considered.
The Petitioner also seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the Respondent Authorities to rescue his mother from
captivity, mental torture and harassment and to ensure that her
freedom and access to essential facilities are not restricted.
3. The dispute in the present case is primarily between the
Petitioner and the private Respondents inasmuch as the Petitioner
alleges that the private Respondents have violated the provisions
of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,
2007 (for short, “the Act of 2007”), by abandoning their mother
and keeping her under lock and key after receiving on gift the
lands and the buildings standing thereon.
4. On the other hand, these allegations are refuted by the
private Respondents in their respective affidavits filed before this
Court. The private Respondents have categorically stated that the

Page No.# 5/11
mother of the Petitioner and the private Respondents, namely,
Smt. Ashalata Mazumdar, is suffering from age-related ailments
and dementia. Under such circumstances, the gates had to be kept
closed otherwise, there was a likelihood that Smt. Ashalata
Mazumdar being unaware of her whereabouts might wander
around.
5. It also appears from the averments made in the writ petition,
more particularly, the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the Petitioner that the properties belonging to Smt. Ashalata
Mazumdar were gifted to the private Respondents thereby
affecting the Petitioner's rights over the lands in question.
6. In the backdrop of the above, if this Court takes note of the
Act of 2007, it would be evident that the Act was enacted to
safeguard older persons, particularly widowed women against
neglect and lack of physical and financial support. Provisions for
the maintenance of parents and senior citizens have been made
under the Act of 2007.
7. Chapter V of the Act of 2007 specifically deals with the
protection of the life and property of senior citizens. Section 22 of
the Act of 2007 is relevant inasmuch as it casts an obligation upon

Page No.# 6/11
the District Magistrate to ensure that the provisions of the Act of
2007 are properly implemented. In this regard, the District
Magistrate may specify an officer subordinate to him to exercise all
or any of the powers and perform all or any of the duties conferred
or imposed under the Act, within such local limits as may be
prescribed.
8. Section 23 of the Act of 2007 is also relevant inasmuch as it
deals with the circumstances in which the transfer of property may
be declared void. The said Section is reproduced hereinbelow:
“ 23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances
1. Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has
transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition
that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs
to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities
and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have
been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the
option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal.
2. Where any senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance out of an
estate and such estate or part, thereof is transferred, the right to receive
maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee has
notice of the right, or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the
transferee for consideration and without notice of right.

Page No.# 7/11
3. If any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rights under sub-
sections (1) and (2), action may be taken on his behalf by any of the
organization referred to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 5.”
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner
referring to the above quoted Section submitted that the gift deeds
executed in favour of the private Respondents are statutorily
recognized as fraud and undue influence as contemplated under
Section 23(1) of the Act of 2007 inasmuch as the transfers were
made in the years 2023 and 2024 when his mother was suffering
from dementia, as admitted by the Respondents in their affidavits.
This aspect is further evident from the affidavit filed by the
Respondent No. 5.
10. This Court, however, finds it very pertinent to take note of that
Section 23 of the Act of 2007 provides a remedy that may be
enforced by a senior citizen by approaching the Tribunal. Where
the senior citizen is unable to enforce the rights available under
Section 23, an organization referred to in the Explanation to Sub-
Section (1) of Section 5 of the Act of 2007 may act on behalf of the
senior citizen.
11. In the instant case, it appears that the Petitioner is primarily
concerned with the effect of the gifts made by his mother in favour

Page No.# 8/11
of the private Respondents on his rights over his mother's lands
and buildings.
12. The learned counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that
certain portions of the building belong to him.
13. It is, therefore, the opinion of this Court that the Petitioner
cannot claim the benefit of Section 23 of the Act of 2007 for
himself. Apart from the mother of the Petitioner, an eligible
voluntary organization registered under the Societies Registration
Act, 1860, as referred to in the Explanation to Section 5(1) of the
Act of 2007 may raise the issue of enforcing the rights under
Section 23 on behalf of the senior citizen.
14. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner
submitted that the Petitioner is barred from challenging the gift
deeds under Section 27 of the Act of 2007.
15. In the opinion of this Court, the bar under Section 27 of the
Act of 2007 would come into play only when the senior citizen or
an organization referred to in the Explanation to Sub-Section (1) of
Section 5 of the Act of 2007 applies. The said bar would not
prevent the Petitioner from approaching the Civil Court if his rights
are affected.

Page No.# 9/11
16. This Court has also given an anxious consideration to the
respective pleadings and is of the opinion that if Smt. Ashalata
Mazumdar is subjected to any distress by the private Respondents,
it is the duty of the authorities under the Act of 2007 to act
accordingly.
17. This opinion is based on the affidavits filed by the private
Respondents and the Respondent No. 5 wherein it is stated that
Smt. Ashalata Mazumdar is suffering from various ailments
including dementia.
18. It is also the opinion of this Court that having regard to the
scope and ambit of the Act of 2007, stringent action should be
taken if it is found that Smt. Ashalata Mazumdar has been
abandoned or subjected to distress at the hands of the private
Respondents.
19. Considering the above, this Court disposes of the instant writ
petition with the following observations and directions:
(i) The Respondent No. 3 either by himself or through an
officer subordinate to him is directed to conduct an inquiry
into the allegations made by the Petitioner in his
representation dated 03.03.2025. For this purpose, the

Page No.# 10/11
Petitioner shall resubmit a copy of the representation dated
03.03.2025 to the Respondent No. 3 along with further
details, if so advised and a certified copy of this judgment.
(ii) The Respondent No. 3 or an officer authorized by him
upon receipt of the said representation and the certified copy
of this judgment shall conduct an inquiry and take appropriate
steps in accordance with the Act of 2007 if it is found that
Smt. Ashalata Mazumdar has been abandoned or subjected to
distress on account of the private Respondents.
(iii) The Respondent No. 3 is also directed to take note of
that certain properties belonging to Smt. Ashalata Mazumdar
were transferred by way of gift deeds dated 16.10.2023 and
09.08.2024. An inquiry shall be conducted in this regard and if
it is found that the transfers fall within the ambit of Section
23(1) of the Act of 2007, appropriate action be taken in
accordance with the Act of 2007.
(iv) This Court grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the
Civil Court if he is aggrieved by the gift deeds on the ground
that they affect his rights over the lands and the buildings
standing thereon, inasmuch as the bar contained in Section

Page No.# 11/11
27 of the Act of 2007 shall not apply against the Petitioner.
(v) No costs.
JUDGE
Digitally signed by Satyam Sharma
Date: 2026.10.14 23:03:44 +05'30'
Comparing Assistant