Gutthikonda Mounika Vs the State of Ap

GUTTHIKONDA MOUNIKA, W/O G. LAKSHMI NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 3-60, AMMAGUNTA VILLAGE @ AYYANNAGARI PALLI VILLAGE, VADAMALAPETA MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, A.P.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WOMEN DEVELOPMENT CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT AT TIRUPATI517501

¶14

THE JOINT COLLECTOR, O/O. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TIRUPATI DISTRICT AT TIRUPATI-517501

¶15

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, TIRUPATI REVENUE DIVISION, TIRUPATI DISTRICT-517501

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR, VADAMALAPETA MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT517506

¶17

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VADAMALAPETA POLICE STATION, VADAMALAPETA, TIRUPATI DISTRICT-517501

¶18

MANGAMMA, W/O. LATE B. SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 13/1/151. PEDDAKAPU STREET, WARD -

¶19

2

¶20

26,TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT-517501

¶21

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶22

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of MANDAMUS declaring (i) the action of Respondent No.3 in not numbering and not entertaining the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 29.12.2025 in O.P. No. 183 of 2025 passed by Respondent No.4 and (ii) the consequential action of Respondents No.5 and 6 in attempting to evict the petitioner from the subject properties, namely the House Property bearing Door No.3-60 and land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 16PERCENT cents situated in Sy.No.96/1 of Ammagunta Village @ Ayyannagari Palli Village, Vadamalapeta Mandal, Tirupati District pending numbering of appeal on the file of Respondent No.3 as illegal arbitrary, ultra vires, contrary to principles of natural justice, provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 besides being violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to forthwith number the appeal filed by the petitioner, consider the interlocutory application seeking suspension of the impugned order, and to restrain Respondents No.5 and 6 from taking any coercive steps including eviction of petitioner from the subject properties and pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased direct the respondents, particularly Respondents No.5 and 6, not to take any coercive steps including dispossession or eviction of petitioner from the subject properties, namely the house property bearing Door No.3-60 and the land admeasuring Ac. 16% cents in Sy.No.96/1 of Ammagunta Village @ Ayyannagari Palli Village, Vadamalapeta Mandal, Tirupati District, pending disposal of the present writ petition pending the disposal of the present writ proceedings: and pass

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.KANDERI CHETHAN

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

3

¶29

1.GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE

¶30

2.GP FOR HOME

¶31

The Court made the following:

¶32

4

¶33

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶34

WRIT PETITION No.1856 OF 2026

¶35

ORDER:-

¶36

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India

¶37

seeking the following reliefs:-

¶38

“to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of MANDAMUS declaring (i) the action of Respondent No.3 in not numbering and not entertaining the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 29.12.2025 in O.P.No.183 of 2025 passed by Respondent Nos.4 and (ii) the consequential action of Respondents Nos.5 and 6 in attempting to evict the petitioner from the subject properties namely the House Property bearing Door No.3-60 and land admeasuring an extent of Ac.16¾ cents situated in Sy.No.96/1 of Ammagunta Village @ Ayyannagari Palli Village, Vadamalapeta Mandal, Tirupati District pending numbering of appeal on the file of Respondent No.3 as illegal, arbitrary, ultra vires, contrary to principles of natural justice provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 besides being violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to forthwith number the appeal filed by the petitioner, consider the interlocutory application seeking suspension of the impugned order and to restrain Respondents Nos.5 and 6 from taking any coercive steps including eviction of petitioner from the subject properties and pass other order or orders...”

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government

¶40

Pleader for the respondents.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.4 passed an order dated 29.12.2025 directing the District Registrar to cancel the registered gift deeds executed by the 7^th respondent in favor of her three daughters contrary to the Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of

¶42

5

¶43

Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act 56 of 2007). He further submits that assailing the orders passed by the respondent No.4/ Tribunal dated 29.12.2025, the petitioner herein filed an appeal dated 12.01.2025 before the respondent Nos.2 and 3 as per Section 16 of the Act 56 of 2007. But for one reason or the other, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 neither received the appeal nor issued any notice or any proceedings stating that the appeal is not maintainable as per the terms of Section 16 of the Act 56 of 2007. Challenging the inaction of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in considering the appeal filed by the petitioner, the petitioner herein preferred the present writ petition.

¶44

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents submits that, as per Section 16 of Act 56 of 2007, the statutory appeal is available only to the parents/ senior citizens but not to a beneficiary or a donee under a title deed said to have been executed by a senior citizen or parent or Grand Parents. He further submits that admittedly, the petitioner herein is a daughter of donee and beneficiary out of the gift deed executed by the 7^th respondent. Therefore, as per section 16 of the Act 56 of 2007, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 cannot proceed further and the appeal filed by the petitioner cannot be considered. He further submits that the petitioner herein can avail alternative remedy by way of civil remedies before appropriate court of law.

¶45

Heard the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view

¶46

6

¶47

that as per section 16 of the Act 56 of 2007, the right of statutory appeal is available only to senior citizens and not to a beneficiary or a donee under a title deed said to have been executed by a senior citizen or parent or grand parents.

¶48

For more understanding Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of

¶49

Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is extracted hereunder:

¶50

“16. Appeals

¶51

1. Any senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be, aggrieved by an order of a Any senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be, aggrieved by an order of a Tribunal may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal:

¶52

Provided that on appeal, the children or relative who is required to pay any amount in terms of such maintenance order shall continue to pay to such parent the amount so ordered, in the murmcr directed by the Appellate Tribunal:

¶53

Provided further that the Appellate Tribunal may, entertain the appeal alter the expiry of the said period of sixty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.

¶54

2. On receipt of an appeal, the Appellate Tribunal shall, cause a notice to be served upon the respondent.

¶55

3. The Appellate Tribunal may call for the record of proceedings from the Tribunal against whose order the appeal is preferred.

¶56

7

¶57

4. The Appellate Tribunal may, after examining the appeal and the records called for either allow or reject the appeal.

¶58

5. The Appellate Tribunal shall, adjudicate and decide upon the appeal Hied against the order of the Tribunal and the order of the Appellate Tribunal shall be final:

¶59

Provided that no appeal shall be rejected unless an opportunity has been given to both the panics of being heard in person or through a duly authorised representative.

¶60

1. The Appellate Tribunal shall make an endeavour to pronounce its order in writing within one month of the receipt of an appeal.

¶61

2. A copy of every order made under sub-section (3) shall be sent to both the panics free of cost.”

¶62

On a perusal of Section 16 of Act 56 of 2007, it is clear and categorical that the statutory appeal is provided only to senior citizens or parents, if they were aggrieved by any order passed by the Tribunal, and not by other person, more particularly any beneficiary or a donee under a title deed said to have been executed by a senior citizen or a parent and against whom the maintenance was claimed. Therefore, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 rightly returned/ not taken on file the appeal filed by the petitioner which is inconsonance to the Section 16 of the Act 56 of 2007.

¶63

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court has inclined to dispose of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate legal proceedings assailing the orders dated 29.12.2025 passed by the tribunal within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶64

8

¶65

order. Till then, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by all the parties concerned in respect of the subject property including Registrar concerned. Further, it is made clear that if the petitioner did not initiate any appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum within the time stipulated, the order of status quo stands vacated. If any proceedings are initiated she should have been prefer interim application.

¶66