IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 29.08.2025 Desh Raj …Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner Kurukshetra and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. B.S. Rana, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nayandeep Rana, Advocate and Mr. Neeraj Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana.

Ms./Mrs. Satbir Kaur, respondent No.5, in person.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(ORAL)

1. Through the instant writ petition, cast under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to the order dated 02.11.2021 (Annexure P-5), passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate-cum- Appellate Authority, Kurukshetra (respondent No.1/A), wherethrough, an application on original site preferred by the petitioner, under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen’s Act, 2007 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 2007’), has been dismissed, as well as the order dated 10.02.2021 (Annexure P-3), passed by the respondent No.1.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, fairly submits that in view of the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court upon CWP-26035-2023, the application (supra), ought to have been decided by the learned Maintenance Tribunal, at the first instance. However, it was transferred to the Additional District Magistrate, Kurukshetra (respondent No.1), who is an Appellate Authority. Therefore, the impugned order dated 02.11.2021 (Annexure P-5), passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Kurukshetra, warrants interference by this Court, and is liable to be remanded to the learned Maintenance Tribunal, for afresh decision, on merits.

3. Today, the respondent No.5, has caused appearance in person, before this Court. During the proceedings, this Court, asked the respondent No.5, as to whether, she wishes to avail the facility of ‘Legal Aid Counsel’, to which, she specifically denied. She has vociferously opposed the instant petition, and submits that in fact, this petition is a collusive petition, filed, at the behest of her husband (respondent No.3), and her mother-in-law (respondent No.4). She further submits that this has been done, in order to deprive her right, which accrues to her after marriage, and there are numerous litigations, which are pending. She also submits that on account of matrimonial discord, this method was adopted by her husband, to file this petition through her grand-father, and therefore, the instant petition completely lacks bona fide. She, in addition, submits that her husband has taken hefty loan on the land in question, which belongs to her, and furthermore, the said land, under different proceeding, has been decreed in favour of the bank. Finally, she submits that the petitioner, in order to achieve the illegal motive, goes to the extent of misinforming the age of the petitioner, as in the application filed under Section 23 of the Act of 2007, before the District Magistrate, Kurukshetra, the age of the petitioner has been specifically mentioned as 90 years, whereas, in the instant petition, the actual age of the petitioner, as per the Aadhaar Card, is 73 years, and the wrong age in the said application, primarily, has been mentioned, in order to have sympathy of the authorities concerned.

4. Before this Court embark upon the submissions, as made by the parties concerned, it is imperative to have a glimpse upon the facts, qua which, there is no wrangle between the parties concerned.

5. As per the jamabandi for the year 2012-13, the petitioner is stated to be the owner of land measuring 144 kanals and 9 marla, in village Ismailpur, Sub Tehsil Ismailabad, District Kurukshetra. The petitioner has executed the transfer deed qua his land, bearing Vasika No.378 dated 05.06.2015, in favour of his two sons namely, Gulzar Singh and Mukhtiar Singh, and his grandson, i.e. respondent No.3, in equal shares. The 1/3^rd share of the said land, i.e. 48 kanal