IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 18.02.2026 Darshna @ Darshana Devi and another …Petitioners Versus Additional Deputy Commissioner (G)-cum-

Appellate Tribunal, Fazilka and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Piyush Setia, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Priyanshu Kamra, Advocate for respondent No.3.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. The dispute is between the daughter and the father. The petitioner No.1, is the daughter of respondent No.3/senior citizen. Fetching grievance from the order dated 12.04.2024 (Annexure P-2), passed by learned Maintenance Tribunal, Fazilka, wherethrough, the application preferred under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short ‘the Act of 2007’), was partially allowed and the petitioners were directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month, as maintenance. Further, the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioners against the said order was also dismissed by learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (G)-cum-

Appellate Tribunal, Fazilka, vide order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-3).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while throwing challenge to the orders (supra), submits that respondent No.3/father, has deliberately filed the application under the Act of 2007, against her daughter only, and no such application was filed against his sons, who also inherits the same property from their father, and no reasons, whatsoever, has been mentioned, as to how, he chose to file the application for maintenance against the petitioner No.1/daughter, only. He further submits that the house, which earlier belonged to respondent No.3/father, was transferred by way of sale consideration, and it was not a gift deed, and therefore, this aspect needs to be gone into. However, the same has not been done by any of the authorities concerned.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3/senior citizen, submits that the above submission, as made by learned counsel for the petitioners, is totally misplaced, as the application was filed under Section 23 of the Act of 2007, seeking eviction of the petitioner No.1, from 05 acres 04 kanals of land, the details of which are mentioned in the application (Annexure P-2), itself. He further submits that there was an endeavour, on the part of the petitioner No.1, to use the fruit of the land and deprive the senior citizen. He also submits that during the pendency of the application, the land has now been repossessed by the senior citizen. Further, considering the inability of the senior citizen to maintain himself, the liability was fastened upon the petitioner No.1/daughter, who is having sufficient resources to maintain her father, and therefore, there is no error in the orders (supra).

4. This Court has examined the submissions as made by learned counsel for the parties concerned, and has gone through the available record.

5. At the outset, this Court has examined the order passed by learned Appellate Authority, who does not vest with the jurisdiction to decide the same, since the impugned order was passed by learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (G)-cum-Appellate Tribunal, Fazilka.

6. Upon being pointedly asked, as to whether, under the statutory provisions, the District Magistrates/Presiding Officers of the Appellate Tribunals are competent to sub-delegate the quasi-judicial functions and powers vested in them by statute, learned State counsel fairly concedes that such functions and powers cannot be sub-delegated. Further, he has also furnished a copy of the instructions dated 27.10.2025, issued by the Directorate Social Security and Women and Child Development, Punjab, wherethrough, it has been categorically clarified to all the concerned authorities that the District Magistrates/Presiding Officers of the Appellate Tribunals, constituted under the Act of 2007, are not authorized to sub-delegate their quasi judicial functio