ORDER :

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.A5/4352/2019 dated 19.09.2019, and quash the same.

Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings of this Court dated 22.10.2019, 12.11.2019 and 19.11.2019, which read as follows:

Proceedings dated 22.10.2019 (1/2):

Mr. N. Dilipkumar, learned counsel representing counsel on record for writ petitioner is before this Court.

2. An 'order dated 19.09.2019 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.m5/4352/2019' (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity, clarity and convenience) made by the first respondent i.e., jurisdictional 'Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate' (hereinafter referred to as 'RDO' for the sake of brevity) has been called in question in the instant writ petition. Vide impugned order, jurisdictional RDO has declared as void a 'settlement deed dated 20.09.2007 registered as document No.8059 of 2007 in the Office of Sattur Sub Registrar Office' (hereinafter referred to as 'said settlement deed' for the sake of brevity). Vide said settlement deed, writ petitioner's father one Raju had settled his self-acquired immovable property (residential house) in favour of the writ petitioner. Thereafter, writ petitioner's father Raju died and the date of demise is 28.11.2016.

3. Post demise of writ petitioner's father, writ petitioner's mother Mrs. Mary (fourth respondent/private respondent in instant writ petition) petitioned the jurisdictional RDO making several allegations seeking setting aside of said settlement deed. To be noted, writ petitioner's mother (fourth respondent) petitioned RDO under 'The Maintenance and Welfare of parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007' (hereinafter referred to as 'Senior Citizens Act' for the sake of brevity, clarity and convenience). On this petition, RDO embarked upon the exercise of conducting an enquiry and passed the impugned order.

4. Assailing the impugned order, instant writ petition has been filed.

5. In the instant writ petition, learned counsel for writ petitioner raises the following points :

(a) Said settlement deed dated 20.09.2007 is prior to date of coming into force of Senior Citizens Act, namely 29.12.2007 and language of Section 23 is clear that it is applicable only to transfers made after commencement of Senior Citizens Act.

(b) Section 23 of Senior Citizens Act can be invoked only by the transferor whereas in the instant case, it is Late.tranferor's spouse.

(c) Issue if any is with the writ petitioner's sister which is beyond the scope of RDO's power under Senior Citizens Act.

(d) This is a matter can be dealt with and adjudicated upon only by Civil Court and not by RDO.

6. In response to the aforesaid submission, learned State counsel draws the attention of this Court to Section 7 of the Senior Citizens Act, which reads as follows:

'Section 7-Constitution of Maintenance Tribunal-(1) The State Government shall within a period of six months from the date of the commencement of this Act, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute for each Sub-division one or more Tribunals as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating and deciding upon the order for maintenance under Section 5.

(2) The Tribunal shall be presided over by an officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer of a State.

(3) Where two or more Tribunals are constituted for any area, the State Government may, by general or special order, regulate the distribution of business among them.'

7. It is submitted that pursuant to Section 7 of the Senior Citizens Act, State has passed Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.171 dated 31.12.2019 which reads as follows:

'Constitution of Tribunal in Each Sub-Division under the Act

[G.O.Ms.No.171, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (SW6), 31st December, 2009, Margazhi 16, Thiruvalluvar Aandu-2040.]

No.II(