##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

WRIT PETITION No.39618 of 2025

Dated: 24.12.2025

Between:

Mohammed Jameela Begum and two others … Petitioners

And

The State of Telangana,

Rep by Principal Secretary

Revenue Department,

Secretariat, Hyderabad and five others … Respondents

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of

Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:-

“… to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction

particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus

challenging the Orders passed by the 3^rd respondent in

case No.M/2173/2025 dated:06.12.2025 served on

petitioner No.2 on 20.12.2025 and petitioner No.3 on

18.12.2025 without hearing thereby cancelling the Gift

Deed and Subsequent documents in pursuant to the

document made vide bearing No.2087/2022, dated:

31.01.2022 in favour of the petitioners herein to an extent

of 908.3 Sq. yrds., 1158.3 Sq. yrds, and 1008.3 Sq. yds.,

respectively as mentioned in the Gift Deed U/s.23 of the

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens

Act & Rules, totally illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory,

unreasonable, violative of Article-300-A, 14, 21 of

constitution of India and contrary to provisions of The

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior citizens

Act, 2007 apart from violative of Principles of Natural

Justice, consequently by setting aside the impugned order

passed by the 3^rd respondent, direct the respondents No.4

and 5 not to give effect to the impugned order and award

costs and pass such other order or orders …”

2

2. Heard Ms.Nikhat Sajida, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr.L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government

Pleader for Revenue representing learned Government Pleader

for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Perused the

record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

respondent No.3 vide impugned proceedings

No.M/2173/2025 dated 06.12.2025 held as under:-

“As per the Sec.23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of

Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 where any Senior

Citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has

transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject

to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic

amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and

such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities

and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be

deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under

undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be

declared void by the Tribunal.

In view of the above facts and circumstances taken into

consideration, I hereby cancelled the Gift deed and

subsequent documents in pursuant to the document made

vide bearing No.2087/2022, Dated: 31.01.2022 in favour of

her daughters Smt.Mohammed Jameela Bagm to the extent

of 908.3 Sq. Yds, Smt.Noorjahan Begum to the extent of

1158.3 Sq. Yds and Smt.Muntaz Begum to the extent of

1008.3 Sq. Yds as mentioned in the Gift deed U/s.23 of the

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and senior Citizens Act

& Rules”.

She submits that the petitioners were not given an

opportunity of fair hearing before passing the impugned

order, which is against the principles of natural justice. She

further contends that respondent No.6 is financially

independent and hence, the case of respondent No.6 does not

3

come within the purview of the Maintenance and Welfare of

Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, “the Act”)

and hence, the impugned proceedings are untenable. Stating

thus, she seeks to set aside the impugned proceedings.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

contends that the petitioners instead of availing an alternative

remedy by preferring an Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal

as per Section 16 of the Act, approached this Court by filing

the Writ Petition. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Writ

Petition.

5. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned

counsel and on perusal of the material available on record,

this Court is of the opini