IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 26.02.2026 Pal Singh ….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Daarika Sikka, Advocate, and Mr. Umes Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner.

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

Ms. Gurpreeet Kaur, Advocate, for respondents No.3 (i) and (iii).

Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.3 (v).

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)

1. Vide instant writ petition, as cast under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the order dated 10.02.2021 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Deputy Magistrate-cum-Appellate Tribunal, Kurukshetra (respondent No.2).

2. Succinctly put, the father of the petitioner (senior citizen) instituted an application, under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2007”) before the learned Appellate Tribunal, Kurukshetra, seeking cancellation of transfer deeds No.3363/1 and 3364/1, dated 03.10.2017, which were executed by him in favour of his son (petitioner).

Accordingly, upon consideration of the matter in issue, the Appellate Tribunal, through the impugned order, allowed the application, thereby cancelling the abovesaid transfer deeds.

3. At the outset, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, instead of joining issues on merits, submits 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. He asserts that under the unequivocal scheme of the Act of 2007, an application preferred by a senior citizen seeking cancellation of a transfer deeds, must be entertained and adjudicated exclusively by the three-member Maintenance Tribunal, and not by Appellate Tribunal straightway. In this regard, he refer to a notification No.1041-SW(4)-2020, dated 08.12.2020, issued by the Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Government of Haryana. In such a situation, the impugned order is vitiated by a jurisdictional error, having been rendered coram non judice, and is therefore liable to be set aside.

4. Upon being confronted, learned counsel for respondents do not dispute that the abovesaid factual aspect of the matter. They fairly concede that the application preferred by the senior citizen ought to have been adjudicated by the three-member Maintenance Tribunal presided over by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and not by the Appellate Tribunal.

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 10.02.2021 (Annexure P-1) does not pass the test of legality, as it was passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction. Moreover, by usurping the adjudication of the application filed under the Act of 2007, the Appellate Tribunal has foreclosed the 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 room for doubt that a senior citizen/transferor seeking cancellation of a transfer deed, on account of breach of the condition of providing maintenance and basic amenities, must approach the Maintenance Tribunal, which alone is vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate such claim, in the first instance. Likewise, an appeal against the order of the Maintenance Tribunal lies exclusively before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 16:-

“2. Definitions- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires -

XX XX XX j. "Tribunal" means the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under section 7 XX XX XX

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 Gazett