HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for women and child welfare and Sri. Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6. Respondent No.7 is formal party.

2. The petitioner and respondent No.7 are sons of respondent No.6. Respondent No.6 has filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short ‘the Act, 2007’) before respondent No.4 seeking maintenance and also to cancel the gift settlement deed bearing Doc.No.177/2022 dated 27.01.2022, executed by her in favour of the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas in Sy.No.650/UU, situated at Indaram Village, Jaipur Mandal, Mancherial District. Respondent No.4 has passed an order dated 13.03.2025 recommending respondent No.3 to take action for cancellation of registered document earlier done, in terms of the Act, 2007. Pursuant to the said order, respondent No.3 has cancelled the gift settlement deed, vide order No.B2/0118/18/2025, dated 29.08.2025. Challenging the said order, petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

3. The procedure is prescribed under the Act, 2007 with regard to disposal of the applications filed by the senior citizens seeking maintenance and cancellation of registered deeds and also eviction of children from the subject property. Admittedly, the impugned order is an appealable order in terms Section - 16 (1) of the Act, 2007. Despite availability of alternative remedy of appeal, still the present writ petition is maintainable under the following three circumstances as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asst. Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Limited, (2022) 16 SCC 447 and also Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1 i. A breach of fundamental rights;

ii. A violation of the principles of natural justice; iii. An excess of jurisdiction; or a challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation.

4. As discussed above, in the present case, it is the specific contention of the petitioner herein that respondent No.3 has

passed the impugned order without serving notice on him and without affording an opportunity. Therefore, the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice, also the procedure laid down under the Act, 2007, the Rules made thereunder, and also the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi3 and Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit, 2025 INSC 20, wherein it was held that the following are the pre-requisites under Section - 23 (1) of the Act, to cancel the registered documents/ gift settlement deed.

(i) The transfer must have been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor, (ii) The transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs to the transferor.

5. Therefore, respondent No.4 being the original authority under the Act, 2007, has to decide the application filed by respondent No.6, seeking cancellation of the aforesaid registered document. He cannot recommend respondent No.3 to cancel the said gift settlement deed. In fact, respondent

3 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684

No.3 is the appellate authority in terms of section 16(1) of the Act, 2007, but not the maintenance Tribunal or original authority. Respondent No.4 is the maintenance Tribunal. Respondent No.3 can adjudicate and decide an application filed by the senior citizens under Rule 21 of Maintenance Rules seeking eviction of children from the subject property. Thus, he is having original jurisdiction in respect of the eviction matters under Rule 21 of Maintenance Rules, 2017 and appellate jurisdiction in terms of Section 16(1) of the Act, 2007. Respondent No. is not the original authority under section 23 of the Act, 2007. Without considering the said aspects, instead of deciding the application filed by res