Sri Chikkanarasimharaju T B Vs the Special Deputy Commissoner I

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:21023 WP No. 24979 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.24979 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI CHIKKANARASIMHARAJU T B S/O LATE T N BASATTEPPA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS R/AT NO.303, SUNSHINE APARTMENTS EAST END ‘D’ MAIN ROAD JAYANAGAR 9^TH BLOCK, BENGALURU – 560 069.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VISHNU HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSONER – I BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KG ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M

¶14

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU – 560 009.

¶16

SRI HARSHA T C S/O CHIKKANARASIMHARAJU T B AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.622, ITI LAYOUT 10^TH CROSS, MALATHAHALLI

¶17

NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU – 560 056.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-3 SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2)

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:21023 WP No. 24979 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15/07/2025 IN MAG/4/SCCR/48/2024-25 PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT I.E., ANNEXURE-A AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following relief:

¶29

“Issue a writ of certiorari by setting aside the impugned order dated 15.07.2025 in MAG/4/SC-CR/48/202425 passed by the 1^st Respondent i.e., Annexure-A and grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶31

AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the material on record.

¶32

The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:

¶33

The petitioner is the father of respondent No.3, who initiated proceedings before respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, seeking cancellation of the Gift Deed dated 21.10.2020 and for

¶34

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:21023 WP No. 24979 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

other reliefs. The said petition filed by the petitioner before respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner / Tribunal was allowed by respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner vide Order dated 10.05.2022. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 – Deputy Commissioner, who allowed the said appeal and set aside the order of respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the impugned order at Annexure – A dated 15.07.2025 passed by respondent No.1 – Deputy Commissioner allowing the appeal filed by respondent No.3, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶37

Though several contentions have been urged by both

¶38

sides in support of their respective claims, having regard to the fact that an appeal at the instance of respondent No.3 against an order passed by the respondent No.2 is held to be not maintainable before respondent No.1 – Deputy Commissioner / Appellate Authority by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri. K. Lokesh Vs. The Bangalore District Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal and Special Deputy Commissioner – 1 and others –

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:21023 WP No. 24979 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

W.A.No.254/2024 dated 20.12.2024, without expressing any

¶42

opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions, to enable the Assistant Commissioner to reconsider the matter afresh and in accordance with law, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the Order at Annexure – A passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Order at Annexure – G passed by the Assistant Commissioner and remit the matter back to respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law by issuing certain directions.

¶43

In the result, I pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) The petition is hereby allowed .

¶46

(ii) The impugned order at Annexure A dated 15.07.2025 passed by the respondent No.1 and the order at Annexure – G dated 10.05.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 are hereby set aside.

¶47

(iii) Matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶48

(iv) Petitioner and respondent No.3 shall appear before respondent No.2 on 27.04.2026 without awaiting further notice from respondent No.2.

¶49

5 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:21023 WP No. 24979 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

(v) Liberty is reserved in favour of both parties to file their pleadings, objections, documents, etc., before respondent No.2, who shall consider the same and provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hear them and thereafter proceed further and take appropriate decision / pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from 27.04.2026.

¶53

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶54

SV

¶55

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

Sri Chikkanarasimharaju T B v. the Special Deputy Commissoner I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Chikkanarasimharaju T B v. the Special Deputy Commissoner I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sri. P. Mahesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Niveditha N G Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Varalakshmi M N., Vs the Honble Member Secretary

Dr. R Raja Vs the General Secretary

Vishal Umesh. R. K. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Sripathi Rao Nadigar Vs the State of Karnataka