D.Gurusamy Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

¶1

W.P.No.24139 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 07.07.2025 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA

¶3

WP.No.24139 of 2025

¶4

D. Gurusamy ... Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Revenue Divisional Officer, South Chennai Division, Guindy, Chennai – 32

¶7

G. Yamini ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's petition dated 04.09.2023 under Tamil Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2007 and fix the time limit for disposal and pass orders.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.P.K. Shiva Kumar For Respondent-1 : Mr.R. Murthi Government Advocate ORDER

¶10

By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final

¶11

disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶12

2.Mr.R. Murthi, Government Advocate takes notice for the first

¶13

respondent.

¶14

Page No.1 / 4

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.24139 of 2025

¶17

The petitioner's wife and the second respondent jointly owned the subject property under a registered sale deed dated 02.08.1985. Whileso, the petitioner's wife executed a settlement deed dated 20.12.1989 in respect of the subject property in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner and his wife executed a release deed in favour of the second respondent on 18.02.1992. The second respondent after marriage did not maintain cordial relations with the petitioner and his wife and therefore, the petitioner and his wife cancelled the aforesaid deed on 02.05.2007. The second respondent challenged the cancellation deed in O.S.No.3676/2016 before the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the second respondent and the said decree was confirmed by the Apex Court. As the second respondent failed to provide maintenance to the petitioner and his wife, the petitioner submitted a representation to the first respondent on 04.09.2023. Though the first respondent received the petition, no action was taken. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

¶18

Page No.2 / 4

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.No.24139 of 2025

¶21

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner's submitted that even though several grounds were raised in support of the writ petition, he would restrict his prayer for a direction to the first respondent, to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 04.09.2023 within a time framed fixed by this Court.

¶22

5.Considering the limited prayer sought for by the petitioner's counsel, this Court directs the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 04.09.2023 on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23