IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : February 26, 2026 GURMEET KAUR -PETITIONER V/S THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KAITHAL CUM CHAIRMAN, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Hritik Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

Mr. A.P.S. Sehgal, Advocate for the respondent No.3.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner, a septuagenarian senior citizen, impugns the order dated 09.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, Appellate Tribunal, Kaithal (respondent No.1).

2. Succinctly stated, the petitioner instituted an application under Sections 22 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2007”) before the Maintenance Tribunal, Kaithal, seeking cancellation of the transfer deed dated 13.06.2022, executed by her in favour of her adopted daughter/

respondent no.2, along with the consequential mutation. The Appellate Tribunal, through the impugned order dated 09.10.2025, disposed of the application by directing the respondent no.2 to pay maintenance of ₹15,000/- per month to the petitioner. The Appellate Tribunal further observed that in the event of failure of respondent No.2 to provide maintenance, the petitioner would be entitled to seek cancellation of the transfer deed in accordance with law. Deriving grievance from non- cancellation of the transfer deed, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

3. The principal contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order was rendered by an authority inherently lacking statutory jurisdiction and, therefore, is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. It is submitted that under the unequivocal scheme of the Act of 2007, an application under Section 23, filed by a senior citizen seeking cancellation of a transfer deed, must be entertained and adjudicated exclusively by the three-member Maintenance Tribunal, as reconstituted for District Kaithal vide notification dated 01.04.2025 issued by the Social Justice, Empowerment, Welfare of Scheduled Castes & Backward Classes and Antyodaya (SEWA) Department, Government of Haryana, and not by the three-member Appellate Tribunal presided over by the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner. Despite the petitioner’s application (Annexure P-7) having been duly filed before the Maintenance Tribunal, it was erroneously adjudicated by the Appellate Tribunal. Consequently, the impugned order is vitiated by a jurisdictional error, having been rendered coram non judice, and is therefore liable to be set aside.

4. Learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.2 do not dispute that the impugned order is tainted by jurisdictional defect, having been passed coram non judice. They fairly concede that the petitioner’s application ought to have been adjudicated by the three-member Maintenance Tribunal presided over by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and not by the three-member Appellate Tribunal headed by the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate.

5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order dated 09.10.2025 does not pass the test of legality, as it was passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction, and is therefore a nullity in the eyes of law and cannot be sustained. Moreover, by usurping the adjudication of the petitioner's application filed under Section 23, the Appellate Tribunal has foreclosed the petitioner’s statutory right of appeal under Section 16 of the Act of 2007.

6. The statutory framework clearly demarcates the original and appellate jurisdictions. A conjoint reading of Sections 2(g), 7, 16 and 23 of the Act of 2007 leaves no manner of doubt