Dalli Bharathi Devi Vs the Government of Andhra Pradesh

THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELL FAIR),SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRACT.

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT.

¶14

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JANGAREDDIGUDEM, ELURU DISTRICT.

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, JANGAREDDIGUDEM, ELURU DISTRICT.

¶16

SMT CHUKKA RAMYA SRI MAIDAM RAMYA SRI, W/O. MAIDAM VIJAY, R/O. FLAT NO.102, EASTER APARTMENTS, SAINIKPURI COLONY, HYDERABAD, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT, STATE OF TELANGANA.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not

¶19

2

¶20

entertaining the petition filed by the petitioner under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 as arbitrary illegal and unsustainable and consequently direct the 3rdrespondent to receive, the petition submitted under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 filed by the petitioner and pas

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶22

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 leased t direct the 3rd respondent to receive the petition submitted under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 by the petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition, and pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.M BALANAGA SRINIVAS

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

3

¶29

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6171/2026

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶32

of the India seeking the following reliefs:-

¶33

“to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in not entertaining the petition filed by the petitioner under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 as arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable and consequently direct the 3^rd respondent to receive, the petition submitted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 filed by the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders.”

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶35

Government Pleader for Women and Child Welfare and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶37

petitioner herein is aged about 76 years and she is a senior citizen. While so, respondent No.5 herein who is grand-daughter of the petitioner by playing fraud got executed a registered settlement deed in her favour and enjoying the property with a promise to maintain and look after the welfare of the petitioner herein. In view of the failure to comply with the promise on the part of respondent No.5, the petitioner got cancelled the registered settlement deed and instituted a suit for declaration on the ground that the registered settlement deed was obtained by way of fraud. The said suit is pending for consideration before the jurisdictional court. While so,

¶38

4

¶39

the petitioner also made a complaint under PGRS Scheme to the District Collector i.e., respondent No.2 herein praying to do justice and order for the mutation of the subject land stands in her favour, by deleting the name of respondent No.5 due to cancellation of the registered settlement deed by the petitioner and also prayed for welfare and maintenance of her. The said complaint under PGRS Scheme dated 12.01.2026 was neither considered nor acted upon by respondent No.3. For which, respondent No.3 issued an endorsement stating that the application under PGRS scheme cannot be considered as an application under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (herein after referred as ‘Act, 2007’). The application/representation of the petitioner was not considered by respondent No.3. The said non-consideration is contrary to law. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶40

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submits that admittedly the petitioner submitted an application to respondent No.2 and not to respondent No.3 and that too the said application is submitted under PGRS scheme. As such, the same cannot be treated as application under Section 5 of Act, 2007. Further, the petitioner sought for mutation and issuance of revenue records in respect of land which was already settled by way of registered deed in favour of respondent No.5. Moreso, execution of unilateral cancellation deed by the petitioner herein, would not be permitted

¶41

5

¶42

under law. He further submitted that as per endorsement of respondent No.3, it is clear and categorical that as long as there is no application under Section 5 of Act, 2007 and rules made thereunder, the respondent No.3 cannot be proceed under the provisions of Act, 2007. If any application is received under Section 5 of Act, 2007, the authority shall proceed, in accordance with law.

¶43

Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the present Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner herein to submit a detailed application under Section 5 of Act, 2007, within a period of two(2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. After such submissions, respondent No.3 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and also by observing Section 5(4) of Act, 2007.

¶44