IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 02.04.2026 Baldev Singh …Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Akash Manocha, Advocate for Mr. Gourave Bhayyia Gilhotra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl. AG, Punjab.

Mr. Ishant Arora, Advocate for Mr. Mohit Sardana, Advocate for respondent No.3.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the instant writ petition, cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has thrown challenge to the order dated 26.08.2021 (Annexure P-1, pronounced on 07.09.2021), as passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal cum Magistrate, Sangrur, whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner, against the orders dated 15.02.2019 and 11.03.2020, seeking cancellation of the transfer deeds dated 26.08.2016 and 29.08.2016 (Annexures P-4 and P-3) respectively, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen’s Act, 2007 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 2007’), was declined.

2. The legality of the impugned order was put to challenge, primarily, on the ground, that same suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the order impugned, and submits that both the orders, as passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lehra, Sangrur (Annexure P-2), as well as, learned Appellate Tribunal cum Magistrate, Sangrur (Annexure P-1), respectively, are in their individual capacity, and therefore, both the orders (supra), suffers from illegality and cannot be cured, and requires interference of this Court.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3, though joined the issue on merits. However, he is unable to refute the factual position, to the effect, that the order(s) impugned is void being coram non judice.

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.

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 functions and powers, to any subordinate, or other officer, irrespective of rank or competence. The relevant portion of the instructions is extracted hereunder:-

“To All District Magistrates/Presiding Officers, Appellate Tribunal Constituted under Sections 15(1) & 15(2) of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

No. P-3(SS)/2025/82189 Dated, Chandigarh 27-10-2025 Sub: Implementation of the Hon'ble High Court Order dated 26.09.2025 in CWP No. 27866 of 2025 - Davinder Singh vs.

Additional District Magistrate & Others.

In continuation of this Department's Notification No.

8/10/2008-8SS/798 dated 27th August 2008, (Flag-A) whereby the District Magistrates were designated as Presiding Officers of the Appellate Tribunals constituted under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, attention is invited to the recent directions issued by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, in CWP No. 27866 of 2025 - Davinder Singh vs. Additional District Magistrate & Others decided on 26.09.2025.

(Flag-B)

2. The Hon'ble Court has categorically clarified that the District Magistrates/Presiding Officers of the Appellate Trib