Disposed

Kesa Venugopal v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Sept 2025WP/1589/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ of certiorari against RDO's order under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act cancelling gift-deed entries over the mother's house. Court declined to decide merits, permitted appeal before District Collector, continued interim maintenance direction.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file statutory appeal before District Collector; interim order dated 02.02.2021 made absolute with continued Rs.5,000/month maintenance.

Kesa Venugopal Vs The State of Telangana — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1589 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kesa Venugopal, S/o: Late Vishnu [\4urthy, Aged 51 years, Occ: working in Mee-Seva, Ryo H.No.'l-203, Tekulapally Village, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana. Rep by Principal Secretary (Revenue) Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhadradri Kothagudem District Kothagudem

¶13

2 Kesa Krishna Kumari, W/o: Late Vishnu Murthy, Aged 51 years, Occ: working in Mee-Seva, RVo H.No.1-203, Tekulapally Village, Bhadradri Kothagudem District

¶14

4 Kesa Krishna Mohan, S/o. Late Vishnu Murthy, Aged 48 years, Occ: Software, Fi./o Qatar, United Arab Emirates

¶15

5 Kesa Kiran Kumar, S/o: Late Vishnu tMurthy, Aged 46 years, Occ Software, Gachibowli, Hyderabad

¶16

..,RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari duly call for the records in Case No. C-1904-2020, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 daled 0410112021 , lrom the file of The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Kothagudem, and consequently set aside the same in the interest of^justice.

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ,) cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Co- t may be pleased to suspend the order impugned herein vide Case No- C- 904-2020, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citi;:, ns Act, 2007 dated 0410112021 , from the file of The Revenue Divisioru I Officer, Bhadradri K6thagudern District, Kothagudem, in the interest:of justi ; r Pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2O2s

¶23

Between:

¶24

Kesa Krishna Kumari, W/o Late Vishnu Murthy, Aged :i years, Occ working in Mee-Seva, Fl/o H.No. 1-203, Tekulapally Village, Bl-t Cradri Kothagudem District

¶25

AND

¶26

...PETITIC I ERfRespondent no 3

¶27

1 The State of Telangana, Rep by Principal Secretary (Fr venue) Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶28

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhadradri Kothaguderr District Kothagudem

¶29

Kesa Krishna Mohan, S/o Late Vishnu tMurthy, Aged 4t years, Occ Software, Rl/o Qatar, United Arab Emirates

¶30

4 Kesa Kiran Kumar, Sio Late Vishnu tvlurthy. Aged 46 1r ars, Occ Software, Gachibowli, Hyderabad

¶31

...RESPONDI NTS/RESPONDENTS

¶32

Kesa_Venuggpal, S/o: Late Vishnu Murthy, Aged 51 /ears, Occ working in Mee-Seva, Fl/o H.No. 1-203, Tekulapally Viltage, E radradri Kothagudlem District.

¶33

...RESPONDt NT^^/RIT PEITIONER

¶34

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the <;r cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Co I t may be pteased to vacate the interim order granted in WP No.1589 of 2021on ) ll02/202i.

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. RAMA SHARANA SHAFT tA

¶36

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Gp FOR REVENIt tE

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3: K JAGADISHWAR REt Dy

¶39

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶40

i I i i

¶41

(

¶42

THI HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶43

UIRIT PEIITION No. 1s89 0F 20.21

¶44

ORDER:

¶45

This Writ petition is hled seeking the issuance of a writ of certiorari, caling for the records in case No. c-19042O2O, filed under the Maintenalce arrd Welfare of parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2OO7 (hereinafter referred to as .the Act, 2OO7), from the file of the Revenue Dirrisional Oflicer, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Kothagudem, artd consequently, to set aside the same.

¶46

2- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent is the mother of the petitioner, and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are his younger brothers. The petitioner,s father died accidentally in the year 2010, and after his death, the mother (3.a respondent) has been living only with the petitioner. The 3rd respondent filed a complaint with the 2nd respondent alleging that the petitioner has illegally occupied her house bearing Municipal No. I-2O3, situated at Tekulapally Village and Mandal (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject propertyJ. It is also alleged that the petitioner

¶47

PaEe 2 of 6

¶48

was not taking care of the welfare of the 3rd rer; :ondent, that the petitioner's wife and he were not treating rer well,^and that the petitioner was responsible for his fathr,r^'s death.

¶49

The petitioner's father had executed a gif: deed in favor of the petitioner with respect to the subject 1 roperty, and this fact was known to the 3rd respondent mother) and respondents 4 and 5 (his brothers). Learned cot nsel submits that the complaint filed by the 3rd respondent, ontains false allegations against the petitioner. Though^,.1 e names of respondents 4 and 5 were a-lso mentioned in I^-re complaint arrd notices were issued to them by the 2rld rc: pondent, the impugned order has been passed only against he petitioner ald not against respondents 4 and 5. He fur -her submits that the 2nd respondent has no authority or j rrisdiction to cancel the gift deed executed in favor of the peti ioner

¶50

On the other hand, H. Rakesh Kur tar, learned Assistalt Government Pleader representing the Government Pleader for Revenue, upon instructions, woulc submit$ that the 2"a respondent, after issuing notices to tl-r,: petitioner as well as respondents 3 and 4 under Rule 6( and 9(3) in

Page 3 of6

lt t ;

Form-C, and notice under Rule 6(3) of the Act, 2OOZ, allowed the petition frled by the 3rd respondent, cancelling the entries made in the Grampanchayat records in respect of the subject property and directed the incorporation of the name of the 3d respondent. It was also directed that the palchayat Secretar5r restore possession of the subject property to the 3d respondent under the cover of a panchanama. The petitioner was further directed to deposit Rs. 5,OOO/_ per month in favor of his mother, i.e., the 3.d respondent. He also submits that against impugned proceedings, appeal lies before the District Collector and that instead of filing appeal before the District Collector, he filed the writ petition, as such, the same is not maintainable. He submits that there is no illegality or inlirmity in the order passed by the 2"d respondent, as such, sought for dismissa_l of the writ petition.

¶56

5' This court, while issuing notice before admission on O2.O2.2O2I, having regard to the fact that the 3rd respondent is a Senior Citizen, directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs. 5,OOO/_ per month, as ordered by the 2"d

¶57

Page 4 of6

¶58

respondent/Tribunal. However, the Revenrr : Divisional Offrcer was directed to ensure t]lat the Panchir 'at Secretary visits the subject house once every week to inte -act with the 3.d respondent. If she complains of any ill-trerr ment by the petitioner, the Panchayat Secretary shall report .he matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, who shall ta,k t appropriate action as required by law, notwithstanding th,: pendency of the writ petition. The petitioner was also dir :cted not to create arry third-party interest or alter the ph1.r ical features of the subject property.

¶59

Having heard learned counsel for the peti'_: rner and the learned Assistalt Government Pleader for Rev: rue, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerit ; of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant I i' rerty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 16(1 of the Act, 2OO7 before the District Collector, who is th : competent authority. Upon frling of such appeal, the Disict Collector shall conduct proceedings in accordance wilh r.1 e procedure established by law and pass appropriate ord<r s strictly in accordance with law. Meanwhile, the interim or j :r passed by

¶60

Page 5 of5

¶61

¶62

this Court on O2.O2.2O2L is made absolute, and the petitioner is directed to continue to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month till the adjudication of an appeal, if frled by the petitioner before the District Collector.

¶63

With the above direction, this Writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶64

SD/. U.SUDHA SSISTANT RE GIS

//TRUE COPY' ',

ECTION OFFICER

To,