M. Kanakaiah, Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Devaraju @ Manupati Kavitha, Wio. Mallesham, D/o. Kanukaiah, aged e.bou!^{37 years,Occ. Housewife,R/o. H.No. 1012, MedapallyViltage,} Nallabell Mandal, Warangal District.

¶15

(The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein are not necessary parties to this petition).

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Af.icle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the impugned order of the third Respondent, vide Proceedings No. H149112024, dated Nil.02-2025, as illegal, improper, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act No. 56 of 2007, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia, by holding that the impugned order, vide Proceedings No. H149112024, dated Ni|.02.2025 issued by the third Respondent-Tribunal is unreasonable and unsustainable in the eye.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c r ;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cor r may be pleased to issue appropriate directions to the third RespondenfTribr- r al to conduct afresh inquiry under Section 8 of the Act No. 56 of 2007, wit r )ut reference to the impugned order of the third Respondent, vide Proceedings \ >. H|49112024, dated Nn.02.2025, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶20

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶21

Petition under Section^'l5l CPC praying that in the cir:u6s12n""r stated in the affidavit filed in support of the pelition, the High Cour may be pleased to direct the fourth Respondent not to create any third p:u.y interest over the Agricultural Land to an extent of Ac.2_14 guntas in Sy. Jo. 380, situated at Kogilvai Village, Damara Mandal, Hanumakonda District, ,y virtue of the Gift Settlement Deed, vide Doct. No. 35 of 2001 , dated 30.01.2111, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SIVA S LANKA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: SRI L. RAVINDER

¶24

AGP FOR REtr lPgE

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI PULIMAMIDI SHASII DHAR REDDY

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

:

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUCTOPAL

¶29

WRIT PETITIO N No.7242 of2025

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶32

'... to issue a uit, ord.er or direction, more particulnrlu a Wit of Mandamus declaing that the impugned.'orde, oj;Z;p;;;;i No.3 uide proceedings No. H/491/2d24, aatea ui.OZ.ZO2i:;; i|lleO7l improper, arbitrary, unjust, contiary to tLe proui"iorr-s iJ ttre Maintenance and. Welfari of parents and. Senior Citizenl Act No.S6 of 2OO7, utithout juri-sd.iction, uiolatiu" .y pri"ipE, .y natural justice, uio.Iati-ue 9f Artictes t+, Zl ana'iOl_A'.i11; Constitution of Indi9, bg holding that tlte impugned. ora"ri ,ia. proceedings No. H/491/2024, d,ated. Utt.OZ.iOZS i""".i ;; respondent .lVo.3 _ Tribunal is unreasonable onl urtsustainable. . . "

¶33

2' Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Iearned counsel for unofhcial respondent and Mr. L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶34

3' Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in possession of agriculturar land admeasuring a totar extent of Ac'6-o 1 guntas. out of which, the petitioner got registered in the form of a gift deed to an extent of Ac.2_14 guntas in Survey No.3gO of Kogilvai village in favor of his daughter - respondent No.4, taking an assurance from her daughter that they will be taken care of by her. It is further submitted that the petitioner being a senior citizen not being aware of the legar proposition of raw had instituted civil proceedings in o's'No{6 of 2023 on the file of learned principal Junior civil Judge at \

¶35

2

¶36

Parkal for declaring the registered gift settlement dr: :d uide document No.35/2021, dated 3O.01.2021 as null arld void anc to grant relief of permanent injunction against his daughter, who is the defendant in the said suit, under Order VII Rule I read with Sr ction 26 of CPC. While the said suit is pending, without being any 1r 'oper lega1 advice and since the petitioner is suffering, had frled ari apl) ication before the Parents & Senior Citizens Maintenalce Tribunal c n the frle of the Iearned Presiding Officer - cum - Revenue Divisione l Officer, Parakala seeking to cancel the gift deed executed in lavor of I is daughter, who is the unoff,rcial respondent No.4 herein, stating thar rer daughter had neglected them and to take ca-re of them, as such, r: luested^{to cancel} the registered gift deed executed in favor of her as p, r Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2OO7 (for short "the Act,2OO7. The said Tribunal without entertainlrr ;^{the petitioner's} application, advised the petitioner to approach the Police and Civil Court, as the proceedings before the Cirril Co rrt are pending pertaining to the property in question. It is further ; rbmitted that the petitioner is always willing to withdraw the said suit filed by him and to avail the remedy under relevant provision of t: =^{Act, 2OO7 and} seeks libert5r to approach the Civil Court to withdrar,, the said suit and to file an application a-fresh before the said Mainter ance Tribunal in view of the developments to be taken place after fil ng withdrawal of the suit.

¶37

3

¶38

ii

¶39

Learned counsel for the unoff-rcial respondent on the other hand submitted that the petitioner having arready availed the remedy under the relevant provision of the Act, 2OOT, could not simultaneously pursue multiple remedies a,d accordingly seeks to dismiss this writ petition.

¶40

5' ['earned Assista,t Government pleader for Revenue submitted that this matter is entirery pertaining to the petitioner and unoflicial respondent, however, submitted that appeal provision is available under the Senior citizens Act,2ooz and the petitioner without availing the said remedy, had approached this Court at a premature stage and therefore seeks to dismiss this writ petition.

¶41

Having heard leamed counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue, and on perusing the material available on record, deems it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner, as sought for. It is made clear that this Court had not made any observations on the merits ald demerits of the case,

¶42

7 . With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. There sha]l be no order as to costs.

¶43

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications if any pending in this petition, shall stand closed.

¶44

Sd/- K. MADHAVI ASSISTANT REGIS //TRUE COPY//

¶45

SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Principal Secretarv to Government, Reve Department, State of Telangana, Dr. B.R. Am5edkar Secretariat. Saifaba yderabad.

¶46

k

¶47