Theivanayagam Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

Theivanayagam Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition allowed; impugned order of the first respondent in No.938/A1/2024 dated 20.09.2024 set aside; petitioner at liberty to file a fresh application claiming shelter and maintenance before the appropriate authority; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the third respondent, being the petitioner's son and not a senior citizen, was entitled to prefer an appeal before the first respondent (Appellate Authority) against the second respondent's order under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. +1 more

Court's answer

An aggrieved person not entitled to appeal under the Act (here, the fourth respondent) should have approached this Court under Article 226 by way of a writ petition rather than filing an appeal before the first respondent.

Ratio / Principle

The first respondent passed the impugned order dated 20.09.2024 without jurisdiction, as the appeal before it was preferred by the third respondent, a non-senior citizen not entitled to appeal under the Act.

Key takeaways

Adopting the ratio of K.Raju v. Union of India (2021-1-L.W. 820): where the clear words of a statute permit no other meaning, particularly on a right of appeal, additional words cannot be read into the appellate provision (Section 16, admitting appeals only by 'Any senior citizen or a parent' aggrieved by a Tribunal order) to discover a right in favour of persons excluded by necessary implication.ratio¶51
The respondents have no power to set aside the settlement deeds or to order retransfer of lands (the judgment does not specify which 'respondents' are meant).obiter¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), M. Dhandapani, J., 28.07.2026 - Writ of Certiorari under Article 226 by Theivanayagam, a 65-year-old senior citizen, against proceedings No.938/A1/2024 dated 20.09.2024 of the District Collector, Appellate Authority under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (first respondent), which closed the appeal preferred by his son Maharajan (third respondent) against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer cum Executive Magistrate (second respondent) directing retransfer of 72 cents of agricultural land in S.No.685/5, Patta No.199, Thenpathu Village, Thirunelveli District, covered by registered gift settlement deeds dated 23.09.2014 executed in favour of respondents 3 & 4; the appeal was closed on undertakings by the third respondent and the petitioner's daughter to care for the petitioner, and the fourth respondent's undertaking to pay Rs.5,000/- monthly maintenance. Held: under Section 16 of the Act only 'any senior citizen or a parent' aggrieved by a Tribunal order may prefer an appeal, and no additional words can be read into the provision to admit others (relying on K.Raju v. Union of India, 2021-1-L.W. 820); the appeal by the non-senior-citizen son was incompetent and the first respondent passed the impugned order without jurisdiction. Writ Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; petitioner at liberty to seek shelter and maintenance afresh before the appropriate authority; no costs.

W.P.(MD)No.16236 of 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 28.07.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

W.P.(MD)No.16236 of 2025

and

W.P.(MD)No.12332 of 2025

Theivanayagam

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The District Collector,

Office of the District Collector,

Appellate Authority,

The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens

Appellate Tribunal,

Thirunelveli District.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer cum

Executive Magistrate,

The Authority under the Maintenance and

Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act Divisional Officer, Thirunelveli District.

3.Maharajan

4.Subramanian

... Respondents

_____________ Page 1 of 8_

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

PRAYER:

W.P.(MD)No.16236 of 2025

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records connected with the impugned order issued by the first respondent in No.938/A1/2024 dated 20.09.2024 and quash the same as illegal in accordance with law.

For Petitioner : Dr.R.Alagumani

For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff

Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu For Respondents 3 & 4 : No appearance

O R D E R

Challenging the proceedings of the first respondent in No. 938/A1/2024 dated 20.09.2024, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 65 years. The petitioner has two male children and one female child and out of love and affection, the petitioner had executed registered gift settlement deeds dated 23.09.2014 vide Document Nos.1454 of 2014 & 5932 of 2014 in favour of the third respondent and a registered gift settlement deed dated 23.09.2014 vide Document No.5933 of 2014 in favour of the fourth respondent. However, since the petitioner was not

Page 2 of 8

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

W.P.(MD)No.16236 of 2025

taken care of by the respondents 3 & 4, the petitioner initiated proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before the second respondent, seeking cancellation of the settlement deeds executed in favour of the third and fourth respondents. However, the second respondent vide order dated 26.12.2023, directed the respondents 3 & 4 to retransfer the entire 72 cents of agricultural land in S.No.685/5, Patta No.199 in Thenpathu Village in Thirunelveli District to the petitioner within 30 days. Aggrieved by the same, the third respondent preferred an appeal before the first respondent, who after adjudication, in and by proceedings dated 20.09.2024, closed the appeal based on the undertaking given by the third respondent and the petitioner's daughter that they will take care of the petitioner and the fourth respondent will provide monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that admittedly, as against the order of the second respondent, only senior citizen is entitled to prefer appeal before the first respondent. The third respondent being the son of the petitioner is not entitled to prefer appeal under the Act. However, the first respondent without any jurisdiction, has passed the impugned order. In support of his submission, learned Counsel

_____________ Page 3 of 8_

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

W.P.(MD)No.16236 of 2025

for the petitioner placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of K.Raju Vs. Union of India, rep. by Secretary to Government and others reported in 2021-1-L.W. 820.

4. Learned Government Counsel appearing for the official respondents fairly submitted that the impugned order came to be passed on the appeal preferred by the son of the petitioner, who is admittedly not a senior citizen. Hence, this Court may issue appropriate directions in the above regard.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Counsel appearing for the official respondents and perused the materials available on record. Though, notice has been served on the respondents 3 & 4 and their names printed, there is no representation on behalf of them.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner is a senior citizen and the third and fourth respondents are his son. The petitioner executed gift settlement deeds in favour of the third and fourth respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a complaint before the second respondent under the Act, for cancellation of the gift settlement deeds. The second respondent by

_____________ Page 4 of 8_

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

W.P.(MD)No.16236 of 2025

proceedings dated 06.02.2020, ordered to retransfer the land in S.No. 685/5 in favour of the petitioner. However, challenging the order of the second respondent, the third respondent being a non-senior citizen has approached the first respondent by way of appeal. The first respondent, without ascertaining the said fact and without jurisdiction, has passed the impugned order dated 20.09.2024. If the fourth respondent is aggrieved by the order of the second respondent under the Act, he should have approached this Court under Article 226 of this Court, by way of a Writ Petition. Rather, he has filed an appeal before the first respondent. Further, the respondents have no power to set aside the settlement deeds or to order retransfer of lands. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court in K.Raju's case, referred to supra, this Court has held as follows:

“9.When the clear words of a statute do not permit any other meaning or interpretation, particularly when it pertains to a right of appeal, additional words cannot be read into the provision to discover a right in favour of a class or persons excluded by necessary implication in the appellate provision. When the words used in Section 16 of the Act are 'Any senior citizen or a parent.... aggrieved by order of a Tribunal may .... prefer an appeal....' and the other words govern the time or describe the senior citizens or the parent in the alternative, there is no room to

_____________ Page 5 of 8_

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

W.P.(MD)No.16236 of 2025

imagine that others aggrieved by an order of the tribunal may also prefer an appeal on the ground that the scales must be balanced between the two sides.

10.In the light of the above and there being no other issue involved, W.P.No.29988 of 2019 is dismissed. It is recorded that the petitioner says that the parties have come to a settlement, but no conclusive finding needs to be rendered in such regard in the context of the present lis and also since the private respondents are not represented. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.29889 and 29890 of 2019 are closed.”

8. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order of the first respondent in No.938/A1/2024 dated 20.09.2024, is set aside. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application claiming shelter and maintenance before the appropriate authority, in the manner known to law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

28.07.2026

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes / No MR

_____________ Page 6 of 8_

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

W.P.(MD)No.16236 of 2025

To

1.The District Collector,

Office of the District Collector,

Appellate Authority,

The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens

Appellate Tribunal,

Thirunelveli District.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer cum

Executive Magistrate,

The Authority under the Maintenance and

Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act Divisional Officer, Thirunelveli District.

_____________ Page 7 of 8_

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

W.P.(MD)No.16236 of 2025

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

MR

W.P.(MD)No.16236 of 2025

28.07.2026

_____________ Page 8 of 8_

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Proceedings No.938/A1/2024 dated 20.09.2024 of the first respondent (District Collector, Appellate Authority under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, Thirunelveli District), closing the appeal preferred by the third respondent against the second respondent's retransfer order, based on the undertaking of the third respondent and the petitioner's daughter to care for the petitioner and the fourth respondent's undertaking to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/-.¶34
District Collector, Appellate Authority, Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal, Thirunelveli District (first respondent) · 20.09.2024
Prior proceeding
Petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 65 years with two male children and one female child.¶35
Prior proceeding
Out of love and affection, petitioner executed registered gift settlement deeds dated 23.09.2014 vide Document Nos.1454 of 2014 & 5932 of 2014 in favour of the third respondent.¶35
Prior proceeding
Petitioner also executed a registered gift settlement deed dated 23.09.2014 vide Document No.5933 of 2014 in favour of the fourth respondent.¶35
Prior proceeding
Not being taken care of by respondents 3 & 4, petitioner initiated proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before the second respondent seeking cancellation of the settlement deeds.¶39
Prior proceeding
Second respondent vide order dated 26.12.2023 directed respondents 3 & 4 to retransfer the entire 72 cents of agricultural land in S.No.685/5, Patta No.199, Thenpathu Village, Thirunelveli District to the petitioner within 30 days. (Note: the judgment elsewhere recites the retransfer order as proceedings dated 06.02.2020 - see next entry.)¶39
Prior proceeding
Alternate recital by the Court: the second respondent by proceedings dated 06.02.2020 ordered retransfer of the land in S.No. 685/5 in favour of the petitioner. This date conflicts with the 26.12.2023 order recited in the factual narrative.¶51
Prior proceeding
Aggrieved by the second respondent's retransfer order, the third respondent preferred an appeal before the first respondent, who after adjudication closed the appeal by proceedings dated 20.09.2024 (the impugned order).¶39