104+201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:11.09.2025 JAIPAL SINGH ...Petitioner Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for Ms. Shivangi Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4.

KULDEEP TIWARI , J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned order dated 01.08.2022 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.2, and the impugned order dated 06.04.2022 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.3, and the application (Annexure P-4) be allowed in toto by declaring the transfer deed vide 10281, dated 31.01.2022 (Annexure P-2) as null and void.

2. Succinctly stated that the petitioner has filed an application against the 4^th respondent, who is the grandson of the petitioner, under Section 23 of the Haryana Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (in short '2007 Act') for cancellation of the transfer deed (supra), on the ground that after the execution of the transfer deed, the 4^th respondent refused to sign on the settlement deed, and also refused to vacate the premises in question as he was earlier agreed to, in view of the oral settlement. The application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal, Gurugram, vide order dated 06.04.2022, with the observation that the petitioner is not residing in the house in question and no condition was mentioned regarding signing of the partition documents in the transfer deed, however, learned Tribunal concerned, after considering the fact, that the property was transferred in the name of grandson, the petitioner has a right for maintenance, and directed the 4^th respondent to pay Rs.5,000/- monthly to the petitioner.

3. The order passed by the Tribunal, was further challenged by the petitioner, by filing a statutory appeal under Section 16 of the 2007 Act. The appeal was partly allowed vide order dated 01.08.2022, whereby, the maintenance amount was enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. However, the said order caused grievance to the petitioner. Consequently, the present petition has been filed, seeking cancellation of the transfer deed, and also making an additional prayer for eviction of respondent from the house in question.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an 80-year-old, man who had transferred his land to the 4th respondent. However, subsequent to the transfer, both the petitioner, and his son were forcefully evicted from the house. It is therefore, contended that the only relief of maintenance granted by the learned Tribunal does not address the petitioner’s grievance. Referring to Annexure P-1, counsel submits that the land was transferred based on an oral settlement entered into between the petitioner, and the 4th respondent. However, after securing the land, the 4th respondent refused to act upon the oral settlement between them, thereby, reneging on the agreed terms. It is further submitted that the 4th respondent has taken undue advantage of the transfer deed, and wrongfully dispossessed the petitioner. Moreover, no maintenance, as directed by the Tribunal, has been paid to the petitioner till date. In light of the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

5. The submissions made by the petitioner is opposed by the 4^th respondent, and draws the attention of this Court to the application to submits that it is not within the purview of Section 23 of the 2007 Act. He further submits that there is no recital in the transfer deed, that the same is executed with any pre-condition, in fact the petitioner has equally distributed the properties amongst his son and his grandson. He also submits that merely on the account that he refused to sign on the family settlement does n