Sandeep and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the impugned order dated 26.02.2026 (Annexure P-12) passed by the respondent No.3 in Appeal No.306/DC (Annexure P-11) while adjudicating the matter in the capacity of Appellate Tribunal (under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007) whereby the order dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure P- 10) passed by respondent No.2 in case No.125/SDO has been set aside and transfer deed no.6709 dated 22.03.2024 (Annexure P-4), mutation No.6282 (Annexure P-5) and General Power of attorney (GPA) no.189 dated 22.02.2024 (Annexure P-3) has been ordered to be cancelled wrongly and illegally.

¶17

Succinctly stated, respondent No.4 instituted an application under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior

¶18

RITIKA 2026.07.21 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CWP No. 11768 of 2026 -2-

¶20

Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, "the Act of 2007") before the learned Maintenance Tribunal, Gohana, seeking cancellation of the General Power of Attorney dated 22.02.2024 and the transfer deed dated 22.03.2024, alleging that the same had been procured by fraud. Vide order dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure P-10), the learned Maintenance Tribunal declined to cancel the transfer deed but awarded maintenance of 8,000/- per month to₹ respondent No.4. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent No.4 preferred a statutory appeal before the learned Appellate Tribunal, which was allowed vide the impugned order dated 26.02.2026 (Annexure P-12), whereby the order of the Maintenance Tribunal was set aside and the transfer deed dated 22.03.2024 was cancelled. Aggrieved therefrom, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition before this Court.

¶21

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to Haryana Government’s notification dated 17.11.2016, prescribing the composition of the Maintenance Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals, to submit that the impugned order dated 26.02.2026 suffers from illegality, having been passed coram non judice . It is submitted that under the notification (supra), both the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are required to comprise three members, with the SubDivisional Magistrate and the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate acting as their respective Chairmen. In the present case, however, the impugned order dated 26.02.2026 was passed in the absence of required three members. Therefore, the said order was rendered without the mandated coram, rendering it illegal and without jurisdiction. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the judgment dated 26.10.2016 rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.18784 of 2015, the relevant

¶22

RITIKA 2026.07.21 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

CWP No. 11768 of 2026

¶24

-3-

¶25

paragraph whereof is extracted hereunder:

¶26

“I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with able assistance and am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is patently without jurisdiction because as per the Scheme of the Act, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are constituted by the State Government by way of notification and the appeal has to be decided by the duly constituted Tribunal. In the present case, notification dated 10.12.2012 has been relied upon to which there is no contrary notification produced before this Court. In this notification, the Tribunal has been specifically constituted for Kurukshetra in which there are three Members. District Magistrate may be the Chairman of the Tribunal but once there is a Tribunal of three Members, the District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take decision alone and the decision has to be taken unanimously or by way of majority. Therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and thus the present writ petition is hereby allowed and impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal constituted as per notification dated 10.12.2012 to decide the matter afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the parties and by passing a reasoned order. ”

¶27

Learned State counsel and learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 do not dispute that the impugned order dated 26.02.2026 is vitiated as it was passed coram non judice .

¶28

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 26.02.2026 (Annexure P-12) was passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction and lawful coram prescribed in the notification dated 17.11.2016. Consequently, the same is a nullity in the eyes of law and cannot be sustained.

¶29

Accordingly, the order dated 26.02.2026, passed by the

¶30

RITIKA 2026.07.21 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶31

CWP No. 11768 of 2026 -4-

¶32

Appellate Tribunal, is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2007. The parties shall cause appearance before the authority concerned on 11.08.2026, whereupon the latter shall endeavour to decide the matter expeditiously, but after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned.

¶33

Disposed of accordingly.

¶34

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands

¶35

disposed of.

¶36

	(	KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE
July 14, 2026
Ritika
_Whether speaking/reasoned _	: Yes/No
Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶37

RITIKA 2026.07.21 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Sandeep and Another v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep and Another v. State of Haryana and Others

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

Similar cases

Joginder Singh and Ors. Vs Deputy Commissioner Cum District Magistrate and Ors.

Ranjit Singh Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda and Ors.

Ms Chief Engineer Dams Water Resources Department Punjab Vs Commissioner Employees Compensation Gurdaspur and Others

Rajni Vs the Presiding Officer

Raibahadur Lala B.D.Trust Vs Labour Court and Ors.

Gurmail; Kaur Vs P.O.Labour Court,Bhatinda and Another