V.Gnanaseelan Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

V.Gnanaseelan Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; the order dated 20.11.2024 in Na.Ka.No.CLRREV/6163/2024/c2 passed by the first respondent is set aside; no costs; W.M.P.No.41246 of 2024 closed; W.M.P.No.3236 of 2025 closed, with liberty to the sisters (V.Virgin, V.Celin and V.Kathreen) to file a civil suit against the petitioner.

Issue for consideration

Whether the first respondent's order dated 20.11.2024 directing implementation of the second respondent's order requiring the petitioner to vacate the premises survives after the death of the petitioner's father (the senior citizen) during the pendency of the appeal. +1 more

Court's answer

Once the petitioner's father died during the pendency of the appeal, there was no question of the petitioner vacating and handing over the premises to him; accordingly, the first respondent's order directing implementation of the second respondent's order was one of non-application of mind and liable to be set aside.

Ratio / Principle

This Court found no necessity to implead the sisters of the petitioner (V.Virgin, V.Celin and V.Kathreen, petitioners in W.M.P.No.3236 of 2025) in the writ petition, and granted them liberty to file a civil suit against the petitioner in respect of their claimed right over the property, in the manner known to law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Dhandapani, J.) allowed W.P.No.38116 of 2024 and set aside the order dated 20.11.2024 (Na.Ka.No.CLRREV/6163/2024/c2) passed by the District Collector directing implementation of the Tribunal/SDM-RDO order dated 24.09.2024 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, which required V. Gnanaseelan to vacate the house he resided in. Holding: the senior-citizen father having died while the appeal was pending, there was no question of the petitioner vacating and handing over the premises to him; the impugned order was therefore a non-application of mind and liable to be set aside. W.M.P.No.41246 of 2024 was closed; the impleading application W.M.P.No.3236 of 2025 by the petitioner's sisters (V.Virgin, V.Celin and V.Kathreen) was closed as unnecessary, with liberty granted to them to pursue their claimed property rights through a civil suit against the petitioner.

W.P.No.38116 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

W.P.No.38116 of 2024 And

W.M.P.Nos.41246 of 2024 and 3236 of 2025

V.Gnanaseelan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector

Office of the District Collector Coimbatore

Coimbatore District.

2.Sub Divisional Magistrate & Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore, North Division & Tribunal under Parents and Senior Citizen Protection and Welfare Act, 2007 Coimbatore North Coimbatore District. ... Respondents

... Respondents

Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to

issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 20.11.2024 under proceedings in Na.Ka.No.CLRREV/6163/2024/

c2 passed by the first respondent against the petitioner, quash the same.

1/6

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

W.P.No.38116 of 2024

For Petitioner : Mr.C.D.Sugumar For Petitioner in W.M.P.No.3236 of 2025 : Mr.Saravanan.D.

For Respondents : Mr.M.Sivavarthanan Government Counsel

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order dated

20.11.2024 under proceedings in Na.Ka.No.CLRREV/6163/2024/c2

passed by the first respondent against the petitioner, quash the same.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner is the son of one Vincent. The petitioner’s father made application before the second respondent under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act and the second respondent passed order dated 24.09.2024 directing the petitioner to vacate the house in which he is residing and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal before the first respondent and during the pendancy of the appeal, the father of the petitioner died, however, the first respondent directed to implement the order passed by the second respondent. The learned counsel further submitted that once the

2/6

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

W.P.No.38116 of 2024

father of the petitioner died, the petitioner being the owner of the property is entitled to enjoy the property and payment of maintenance or vacating the house and handing over to the petitioner’s father does not arise. If at all the petitioner’s sisters claim that they have right over the property, they have to approach the competent civil Court.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.M.P.No.3236 of 2025 submitted that the petitioners in W.M.P.No.3236 of 2025 are the sisters of the petitioner. Already the second respondent directed the writ petitioner to vacate the premises and to hand over the same to their father and if the said order is implemented, the petitioners in W.M.P.No.3236 of 2025 are entitled to occupy the premises.

4.The learned Government Counsel submitted that the petitioners in W.M.P.No.3236 of 2025 are not parties either before the second respondent or before the first respondent and the dispute was only between the petitioner’s father and petitioner and further submitted that without considering the fact that the petitioner’s father died, the first respondent passed the impugned order, which is not sustainable one.

3/6

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

W.P.No.38116 of 2024

5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on

record.

6.The petitioner’s father made application before the second respondent under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act and the second respondent passed order dated 24.09.2024 directing the petitioner to vacate the house in which he is residing and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal before the first respondent and during the pendancy of the appeal, the father of the petitioner died, however, the first respondent directed to implement the order passed by the second respondent. Once the father of the petitioner died, there is no question of vacating and handing over the premises to the petitioner’s father. Hence, the order of the first respondent is non application of mind and the same is liable to be set aside.

7.The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 20.11.2024

under proceedings in Na.Ka.No.CLRREV/6163/2024/ c2 passed by the first respondent is set aside. No costs. Consequently,

4/6

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

W.P.No.38116 of 2024

W.M.P.No.41246 of 2024 is closed. Since this Court finds no necessity to implead the petitioners in W.M.P.No.3236 of 2025 in this writ petition, W.M.P.No.3236 of 2025 is also closed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners in W.M.P.No.3236 of 2025 namely, V.Virgin; V.Celin and V.Kathreen/ sisters of the petitioner, to file civil suit as against the petitioner in the manner known to law.

22.06.2026

pri

Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order: Yes/ No NCC: Yes/ No

To

1.The District Collector Office of the District Collector Coimbatore Coimbatore District.

2.Sub Divisional Magistrate & Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore, North Division & Tribunal under Parents and Senior Citizen Protection and Welfare Act, 2007 Coimbatore North Coimbatore District.

5/6

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

W.P.No.38116 of 2024

M.DHANDAPANI,J. pri

W.P.No.38116 of 2024 And W.M.P.Nos.41246 of 2024 and 3236 of 2025

22.06.2026

6/6

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