Satnam Singh Sahota through His Gpa Holder Amardeep Singh Sahota Vs State of Punjab and Others

Through the present writ petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 27.06.2024 (Annexure P-4), whereby, upon an application preferred by the respondent No.5 (since deceased) under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2007’), the respondent No.3Maintenance Tribunal cancelled the transfer deed dated 28.01.2015 executed in his favour. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 27.08.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the respondent No.2- Appellate Tribunal, whereby the statutory appeal preferred by him under the provisions of the Act of 2007 was dismissed.

¶15

The principal contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 27.08.2025 has been passed by

¶16

DEVINDER YADAV 2026.04.24 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶17

2

¶18

CWP-4478-2026

¶19

an authority devoid of statutory jurisdiction, and therefore, warrants interference on this ground alone. It is submitted that, in view of the Punjab Government Notification bearing No. 8/10/2008-8SS/542 dated 15.07.2008, and in exercise of powers conferred under Sections 7(1)&(2) and 15(1)&(2) of the Act of 2007, the Governor of Punjab constituted the Maintenance Tribunals/Appellate Tribunals. Their jurisdictions for the implementation of the Act of 2007 are as under:-

¶20

Sr. No.	Name of the Tribunal	Jurisdiction	Presiding Officer of the Tribunal
1.	Maintenance Tribunal	Sub Division of the District concerned	Sub Divisional Magistrate of the area concerned
2.	Appellate Tribunal	District concerned	District Magistrate of the area concerned

¶21

Consequently, it is submitted that since the impugned order dated 27.08.2025 has not been passed by the statutory authority, i.e. District Magistrate, rather has been passed by an authority exercising subdelegated powers, i.e. Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jagraon, it deserves to be set aside.

¶22

This Court posed a specific query to learned State counsel as to whether, under the statutory provisions, the District Magistrates/Presiding Officers of the Appellate Tribunals are competent to sub-delegate the quasi-judicial functions and powers vested in them by statute. Learned State counsel has fairly conceded that such functions and powers cannot be sub-delegated.

¶23

Moreover, learned State counsel has furnished a copy of the instructions dated 27.10.2025, issued by the Directorate Social Security and Women & Child Development, Punjab, wherethrough it has been

¶24

DEVINDER YADAV 2026.04.24 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶25

3

¶26

CWP-4478-2026

¶27

categorically clarified to all the concerned authorities that the District Magistrates/Presiding Officers of the Appellate Tribunals constituted under the Act of 2007 are not authorized to sub-delegate their quasijudicial functions and powers to any subordinate or other officer, irrespective of rank or competence. The relevant portion of the instructions is extracted hereunder:-

¶28

“To All District Magistrates/Presiding Officers,

¶29

Appellate Tribunal Constituted under Sections 15(1) & 15(2) of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. No. P-3(SS)/2025/82189

¶30

Dated, Chandigarh 27-10-2025

¶31

Sub: Implementation of the Hon'ble High Court Order dated 26.09.2025 in CWP No. 27866 of 2025 - Davinder Singh vs. Additional District Magistrate & Others.

¶32

In continuation of this Department's Notification No. 8/10/2008-8SS/798 dated 27th August 2008, (Flag-A) whereby the District Magistrates were designated as Presiding Officers of the Appellate Tribunals constituted under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, attention is invited to the recent directions issued by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, in CWP No. 27866 of 2025 - Davinder Singh vs. Additional District Magistrate & Others decided on 26.09.2025. (Flag-B)

¶33

2. The Hon'ble Court has categorically clarified that the District Magistrates/Presiding Officers of the Appellate Tribunals constituted under the said Act are not authorized to sub-delegate their quasi-judicial functions and powers to any subordinate or other officer, irrespective of rank or competence.

¶34

3. Pursuant to the said judgment, the Office of the Worthy Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab, vide letter No.OSD(L)/CS/2025/64708997 dated 09.10.2025, (Flag-C) has directed that the above order be circulated to all concerned authorities for meticulous compliance.(Copy enclosed along with Hon'ble Court orders).

¶35

4. It is, therefore, requested to ensure strict and prompt compliance with the aforesaid directions of the Hon'ble High Court and the Chief Secretary's Office. It may further be ensured that a copy of these orders is circulated to all Sub-Divisional Magistrates under your jurisdiction for necessary action and adherence.

¶36

DEVINDER YADAV 2026.04.24 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶37

CWP-4478-2026

¶38

4

¶39

5. Non-compliance may attract adverse observations from the Hon'ble Court; therefore, the matter may be treated as Top Priority.

¶40

Encls. As above.”

¶41

Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 also fairly concedes that the impugned order dated 27.08.2025 has not been passed by the statutory authority, as prescribed under the notification dated 15.07.2008.

¶42

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 27.08.2025 does not pass the test of legality and requires interference of this Court. Consequently, the impugned order dated 27.08.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Magistrate -cum- Presiding Officer, Appellate Tribunal, for fresh adjudication in accordance with Section 16 of the Act of 2007. Both the parties are directed to cause appearance before the District Magistrate -cum- Appellate Tribunal on 15.05.2026, whereupon the latter shall endeavour to decide the matter expeditiously, but after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. The parties shall be at liberty to raise their respective pleas before the Appellate Tribunal.

¶43

8. Disposed of accordingly.

¶44

April 23, 2026	(KU	LDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE
devinder
Whether speaking/reasoned	:	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	:	Yes/No

¶45

DEVINDER YADAV 2026.04.24 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Satnam Singh Sahota through His Gpa Holder Amardeep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satnam Singh Sahota through His Gpa Holder Amardeep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab 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

Ramphal Vs District Magistrate Appellate Tribunal and Anr.

The Mullana Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society Ltd. Mullana Vs State Information Commission Haryana and Others

Raj Kumar and Another Vs Deputy Magistrate and Others

Chander Parkash Vs Deputy Commissioner Cum Appellate Tribunal Nuh and Others

Poonam Yadav Vs Deputy Commissioner Cum Chairman and Another

Ashok Kumar and Anr. Vs District Magistrate Cum Appellate Authority Rohtak and Others