##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

101 CWP-4989-2020

Date of Decision : May 25, 2026

SUDESH -PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present: Mr. Nand Lal Sammi, Advocate

for the petitioner.

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

Mr. Vivek Sheoran, Advocate

for the respondent No.4.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner impugns the

legality of the orders dated 11.06.2018 and 10.01.2020 passed by the

Maintenance Tribunal, as well as the order dated 21.11.2019 passed by the

Appellate Tribunal.

2. Succinctly stated, respondent No.4 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

Maintenance Tribunal, seeking dispossession of respondent No.5 and the

petitioner from her property, along with cancellation of the transfer/release

deeds dated 24.12.2015 and 05.04.2017 executed in their favour,

respectively. Vide order dated 11.06.2018, the Maintenance Tribunal

allowed the application and recommended to the Deputy Commissioner

cancellation of the transfer/release deeds. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner

DEVINDER YADAV

2026.05.26 10:39

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

order/judgment

CWP-4989-2020 2

preferred a statutory appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Simultaneously,

respondent No.4 filed an application before the Appellate Tribunal-cum-

Deputy Commissioner seeking implementation of the recommendations

made by the Maintenance Tribunal. Vide common order dated 21.11.2019,

the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and

allowed the application filed by respondent No.4, thereby directing

cancellation of the transfer/release deeds and restoration of possession of the

property to respondent No.4. Accordingly, the Maintenance Tribunal, vide

order dated 10.01.2020, cancelled the transfer/release deeds. Thus, having

remained unsuccessful before the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner has

approached this Court assailing the orders (supra).

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner draws the

attention of this Court to Haryana Government’s notification dated

17.11.2016, prescribing the composition of the Maintenance Tribunal and

the Appellate Tribunal, to submit that the impugned order dated 11.06.2018

suffers from illegality, having been passed coram non judice. It is submitted

that under the notification (supra), both the Maintenance Tribunal and the

Appellate Tribunal are required to comprise three members, with the Sub-

Divisional Magistrate and the Deputy Commissioner acting as their

respective Chairmen. In the present case, however, the impugned order

dated 11.06.2018 was passed solely by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

Therefore, the said order was rendered without the mandated coram,

rendering it illegal and without jurisdiction. In support of this contention,

reliance is placed on the judgment dated 26.10.2016 rendered by a

Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.18784 of 2015, the relevant

paragraph whereof is extracted hereunder:-

DEVINDER YADAV

2026.05.26 10:39

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

order/judgment

CWP-4989-2020 3

“I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record with able assistance and am of the considered opinion that

the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is patently

without jurisdiction because as per the Scheme of the Act, the

Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are constituted by the State

Government by way of notification and the appeal has to be decided

by the duly constituted Tribunal. In the present case, notification

dated 10.12.2012 has been relied upon to which there is no contrary

notification produced before this Court. In this notification, the

Tribunal has been specifically constituted for Kurukshetra in which

there are three Members. District Magistrate may be the Chairman

of the Tribunal but on