ORDER :

TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J.

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

"…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order passed by the 3rd Respondent dated 05.03.2022 in O.P.No.11 of 2020 by cancelling the Gift deeds vide Regd.No.445 of 2015 and 444 of 2015 dated 08.01.2015 at SRO, Narasaraopet as illegal, arbitrary and violation of the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and consequently suspend the impugned order dated 05.03.2022 in O.P.No.11 of 2020 and pass such other orders or orders……."

2. Heard learned designated Senior Counsel Sri K.Chidambaram, assisted by Sri Manikanta Thota, learned counsel for the petitioner and designated Senior Counsel Sri P.Veera Reddy, assisted by Sri Rama Mohan Raao Kotha, for respondent No.4 and the learned Government Pleader for the Official Respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, are that:

4. The 4th respondent executed two registered settlement deeds in favour of the petitioner, vide registered document Nos.444 of 2015 and 445 of 2015, registered in the Sub-Registrar Office, Narasaraopet, dated 08.01.2015. The 4th respondent has filed a suit O.S.No.53 of 2016 on the file of the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, for cancellation of the said settlement deeds executed in favour of the petitioner and the said suit was dismissed for default. While so, the 4th respondent herein filed O.P.No.11 of 2020, before the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, invoking the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, 'the Act, 2007') for cancellation of registered settlement deeds dated 08.01.2015. The 3rd respondent, vide order dated 05.03.2022, has allowed the O.P.No.11 of 2020 and cancelled the registered settlement deeds executed by the 4th respondent under Section 23(1) of the Act, 2007.

5. The said order dated 05.03.2022 of the 3rd respondent in O.P.No.11 of 2020 is assailed in this writ petition on the ground that the said settlement deeds are not conditional deeds, and Section 23(1) of the Act, 2007 is not absolute or unlimited and having statutory or legal restrictions, which the Tribunal wholly failed to see, hence prayed to set aside the impugned order consequently to allow the writ petition.

6. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara Vs. Ramti Devi and another reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1684, wherein the Supreme Court held that a gift deed executed cannot be cancelled mere requisite to maintain senior citizen, in the absence of specific condition for providing maintenance to the transferor. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramalakshmamma and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in 2025 SCC Online AP 900, wherein a Division Bench of this Court, after considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Urmila Dixit Vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit and others reported in (2025) 2 SCC 787, held that gift deed can be cancelled on fulfilling of two conditions as stipulated in Section 23 of the Act, 2007, first, that there should be a condition incorporated in the deed that the transferee must provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor, and second, that the gift deed must state that the deed will be cancelled if these amenities are not provided. Unless the said two conditions are fulfilled, the transferor cannot seek a direction from the authority for cancellation of the deed nor can the authority be directed by the said implication to cancel the deed. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 05.03.2022.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the unof