JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India in the nature of certiorari seeking setting aside of the order dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 in Case No. 14 titled 'Gulzar Sigh Vs. Swarn Kaur and another' and order dated 27.03.2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.3 in Case No.02/Senior Citizen/Petition 03/2023 titled 'Swaran Kaur Vs. Jasbir Singh and another'.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.4, who is the mother of the present petitioner, had transferred 14 share each of the property in question, in favour of the present petitioner and the respondent No.5, who are the sons of respondent No.4, vide transfer deed dated 14.06.2017 (Annexure P-3). In the said transfer deed, it was stated that respondent No.4 is the owner of the property and that the transfer was being made out of her free will and without any fear, with the further stipulation that the beneficiaries i.e. petitioner and respondent No.5 would provide services and basic needs of respondent No.4 according to Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to 'Act of 2007') and in case of failure of doing so, the transfer of the ownership would be cancelled. The petitioner and respondent No.5 having violated the said condition, respondent No.4 moved an application under Section 23 of the Act of 2007 for cancellation of the said transfer deed. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Derabassi, District SAS Nagar, vide order dated 27.03.2023 (Annexure P-2), after taking into consideration the fact that respondent No.4 was the owner of the property in question and was also unable to work due to her old age and also the fact that the petitioner and respondent No.5 were not providing the basic requirements, allowed the said application and cancelled the transfer deed. A perusal of the order dated 27.03.2023 (Annexure P-2) would show that the report of the tehsildar was called for and the jamabandi for the years 2011-12 with respect to the property in question was considered and on the basis of the same, it was held that respondent No.4 was the owner of the property in question. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (J)-cum-Collector, SAS Nagar, who was the appellate authority and the said appeal was also dismissed, vide order dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure P-1). In the said order dated 17.10.2023, it was observed that respondent No.4 was entitled to claim back her property in accordance with provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 2007, which right was reserved by her at the time of transferring the property. It was reiterated that respondent No.4 was the owner of the property in question. The arguments on behalf of respondent No.4 to the effect that the petitioner did not obey the law and always raised fights and also the fact that the petitioner had his own premises and was a government servant and had also purchased two plots, were also noticed. It is the said two orders, which have been challenged in the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside on two grounds. The first ground being that respondent No.4 was getting Rs. 15,000/- per month as rent and also getting government pension of Rs. 15,00/- per month and thus, her basic needs were being met from the said amount and it could not be said that respondent No.4 could not meet her basic needs. The second argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that on equity, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside as in case the impugned order(s) are not set aside, then, subsequently, respondent No.4 would also have a right to seek possession from the petitioner.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper-book and finds that the present writ petition is merit-less and deserves to be dismissed for t