Dismissed

Rukmani v. the District Collector

Madras HC21 Mar 2024WP/7836/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the District Collector's rejection of her appeal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Court held that only senior citizens or parents can invoke this remedy. The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition, which was granted.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed as withdrawn with clarifications; connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

Rukmani Vs the District Collector — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P. No. 7836 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.03.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU

¶6

W.P. No. 7836 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P. No. 8785 and 8786 of 2024

Rukmani

… Petitioner

-vs-

The District Collector Collectorate GST Road Chengalpattu – 603001.

¶12

The Sub Divisional Magistrate and The Revenue Divisional Officer Taluk Office Complex Opp. Meps, GST Road Kadaperi, West Tambaram Chennai – 600045.

¶13

The Sub Registrar Selaiyur Sub Registration Office Integrated Tambaram and Selaiyur Sub Registrar Office Maruthi Nagar Main Road Anjugam Ammaiyar Park Opposite Rajakilpakkam, Chennai – 73.

¶14

Govindasamy ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

1/5

¶18

W.P. No. 7836 of 2024

¶19

records of the impugned order dated 10.08.2023 passed by the First Respondent in Na.Ka.No. 7716/2023/M.1 and order dated 31.05.2023 passed by the Second Respondent in Na.Ka. No. 83/2023/A and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and non-est in law and consequently direct the Third Respondent to make necessary mutation in the encumbrance certificate restoring both settlement deeds dated 19.07.2021 registered as Doc. Nos. 8360 of 2021 and Doc. No. 8361 of 2021 on the file of SRO, Selaiyur within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr. S.Mohamed Uduman

¶21

For Respondents : Mr. S.J.Mohamed Sathik, GA (RR1 & 2) Mr. U.Baranidaran, AGP (R3)

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Heard Mr. S.Mohamed Uduman, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner,

¶24

Mr. S.J.Mohamed Sathik, Learned Government Advocate who takes notice for

¶25

the First and Second Respondents and Mr. U.Baranidaran, Learned Additional Government Pleader who takes notice for the Third Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶26

The First Respondent by Order in Na.Ka.No. 7716/2023/M.1 dated 10.08.2023 had rejected the appeal preferred by the Petitioner under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

2/5

¶29

W.P. No. 7836 of 2024

¶30

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) against the Order in Na.Ka. No. 83/2023/A dated 31.05.2023 passed by the Second Respondent cancelling the Settlement-Deed dated 19.07.2021 executed by the wife of the Fourth Respondent in favour of the Petitioner (registered as Document No. 8359 of 2021 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Selaiyur), in the exercise of powers under Section 23 of the Act, which is challenged in this Writ Petition.

¶31

The Division Bench of this Court in the authoritative pronouncement in K.Raju -vs- Union of India [(2021) 2 CTC 129] has ruled that the plain language of Section 16 of the Act is clear that only a 'Senior Citizen' or 'Parent' could invoke the right of appeal under that legal provision, and none else could avail such remedy.

¶32

In view of the same, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the Writ Petition reserving the rights of the Petitioner to challenge the Order in Na.Ka. No. 83/2023/A dated 31.05.2023 passed by the Second Respondent before the proper forum in the manner recognized by law and he has made an endorsement to that effect in the court record.

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

3/5

¶35

W.P. No. 7836 of 2024

¶36

In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the

¶37

aforesaid clarifications. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions

¶38

are closed. No costs.

¶39

21.03.2024

¶40

Index: Yes/No NCC: Yes/No

¶41

Note: Issue order copy by 01.04.2024.

¶42

Maya

¶43

¶44

The District Collector Collectorate GST Road Chengalpattu – 603001.

¶45

The Sub Divisional Magistrate and The Revenue Divisional Officer Taluk Office Complex Opp. Meps, GST Road Kadaperi, West Tambaram Chennai – 600045.

¶46

The Sub Registrar Selaiyur Sub Registration Office Integrated Tambaram and Selaiyur Sub Registrar Office Maruthi Nagar Main Road Anjugam Ammaiyar Park Opposite Rajakilpakkam, Chennai – 73.

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

4/5

¶49

W.P. No. 7836 of 2024

¶50

P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.

¶51

Maya

¶52

W.P. No. 7836 of 2024

¶53

21.03.2024

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

5/5

Rukmani v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rukmani v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Jcbl Marrel Tipper Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Managing Director

A.Lakshmanan Vs Dr.D.Karthikeyan

M.Parasakthi Vs Saravan Kumar Jatavath

P.Murugesan Vs the District Collector

D.Dhandapani Vs the Commissioner

Lakshmanan Vs the Commissioner