The High Court · 2025

Petition Under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ more particularly writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 in passing the order directing petitioner eviction as bad, arbitrary, illegal and highhanded one and contrary to the intention of Maintenance and welfare of Parents and senior citizens Act, 2o0l and also in violation of principles of natural justice and consequentially set-aside the impugned proceedings bearing No. L1lBBl2023, dt.1210612023 issued by the 2nd Respondent. '-'f l.A.NO:1 OF 2023 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci.cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to suspend the impugned Proceedings No L1188/2023, dt.12l06l7123 passed by the Respondent No. 2, pending disposal of this writ petition, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.KARUNA SAGAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (REVENUE) Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI MD. NAZEERUDDIiI KHAN The Court made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LA>(MI NARAYANA ALISHETTY UIRIT PETITION No.16668 of,2023 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed declaring the action of 2nd respondent in issuing proceedings dated 12.06.2023 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was evicted from the house premises bearing No.l-72 / 125, Vokshith Enclave, Gajularamaram, Medchal- Malkajgrri District (for short 'subject propertyJ as illegal, arbitrar5r and contrarl, to the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,2OOT (for short 'the Act, 2OO7).

2. Heard Sri K.Karuna Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Md.Nazeeruddin Khan, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the wife of Prashanth Reddy who is the son of 3'd respondent; that due to differences, petitioner's husband filed OP for divorce vide FCOP.No.3O9 ol 2022 on the Iile of II Additional District Judge, Medchal; arrd that the petitioner frled DVC.No.2I of 2O2O on the file of VIII Metropolital Magistrate, Medchal; that cases arrd counter cases have also been hled between the petitioner and family members of 3'd respondent and the sarne are pending. He ') submitted that while the matter stood thus, 3.. respondent had hled an application before the 2nd respondent uncler the provisions of the Act, 2007, against the petitioner and the 2"4 respondent vide impugned order dated 12.06.2023 allowed the said applicat.ion and directed the petitioner to vacate the subject property within a period of 15 days

4. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.06.2023 ol'the 2'd respondent, present writ petition is filed by the petitioner and initialiy this Court vrde order dated 30.06.2023 suspended the said impr,rgned order passed by the 2"d respondent, however, vicle order dated 27.O3.2025, vacated the suspension order dated 30.06.2023 by observing that the petitioner was seeking time on one pretext or the other in order to prolong the litigation and tha.t granting of any further time to the petitioner would definitely arn,runt to defeating the very object of the Act, 2OO7. Subsequently, tl.re petitioner was evicted from the subject property.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order passed by the 2na respondent is contrary to the provisions of the Act, 2OO7; ald that as per Flule-2 1 (3) of the Telangana Maintenar-rce and Welfare of parents an,l Senior Citizens Rules, 2O 1 1, the Collector has been vested with the power to deal with any application filed by the Senior Citizen for eviction. ffi, J I i I . However, in the present case, the 2"a respondent without any authority or jurisdiction has entertained the application ftled by the

3.d respondent and passed impugned order, therefore, per se the impugned order dated 12.06.2023 is illegal and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel also submits that the household articles and personal belongings of the petitioner are still lying in the subject property.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order passed by this Court dated O8.O7.2024 in WP.No.72O7 of 2024, to buttress his argument that under the provisions of the Act, 2OO7 , only the Collector & District Magistrate, is empowered to entertain the application hled by the senior citizen for eviction. Therefore, prays to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 12.06.2023. 7 . Learned Counsel for 3'd respondent fairly submits that the 2"d respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. However, he submits that the petitioner is not residing in the premises and therefore the question of evicting the peLitioner from the subject property does not arise. He also submits that cases and colrnter cases have been hled between the petitioner, her husband and 3.d respondent and the sarne are pending before various Courts for adjudication. He further submits that neither the petitioner nor \ 4 .-- \. \" :*.'1..r':->i' the 3.a respondent resides in the subject property, and that tenalts inducted by the 3.d respondent are, in fact, in occupatiorl of the subject property, therefore, to avoid further con-rplications, he requests that status quo be ordered. Learned Counsel submits that against the impugned order dated 12 . O6 .2023 , Lhe petitioner has filed appeal and the 3.d respondent has received notrces in the said appeal from the office of the Collector and Lras also entered appearance

8. A perusal of the record would disclose that the petitioner is the daughter-in-law of 3rd respondent and cases ar-rd countor cases are pending between the petitioner, 3.d respondent as well as husbald of petitioner, including the divorce OP, DVC, CC) under Section 498-A of IPC and also criminal cases undr:r Section 324 of IPC. Since the scope of present writ petition is ver,v limited and is only coni-rned to the impugned order passed by 2nrt respondent, this Court is not inclined to delve into the merits of l.he cases ard counter-cases hled against each other.

9. Entertaining the application filed by the 3rd r,rsponden: under the provisions of the Act, 2OO7, the 2"a responclent has passed impugned order directing the petitioner to vacate the subject property. As rightly pointed out by the learr e cl coun sel for petitioner, as per Rule 21(3) of the Telangana Nlaintenance and 'Y .,*- - |r "s ' n!--^' ....':...|-:,- 'r 5 Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 201 1 , only the District Collector is empowered to entertain the said application. Therefore, prima facie, the impugned order passed by the !"d respondent IS without jurisdiction and therefore, the same is unsustainable.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.06.2023 passed by the 2'd respondent is set aside and consequently the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order, before Collector has become infructuous'

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, liberty is granted to the 3.d respondent to avail appropriate remedy under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,2OO7. There sha-11 be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, sha1l stand closed. To \ \ //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMA]L Ury REGISTRAR I I SECTION OFFICER 1 2 3

4. 5. tl. The District Collector, tVledchal [Valkajgiri Dist. Malkaiqiri. The Revenue Divisionar officer, and 6-uo-oi"ti"'.lriilr'Jgistrate, Markajgiri Division, Medchal- Malkaiqiri Dist. Two CCs to Gp FOR SOo|AL WELFARE (REVENUE), High Court for the \ '- i +r rvE/' State of Telangana at HyderabaO. tOUff 9r" 99 to SRt K.KARUI\R SRCAR, Adiocate topucl 9n" 99 t9 SRt t\4D. NAZEERUDDTN KHAN, Aci;c;ti'(Opuc) Two CD Copies SA PVL u- a. t- -rHr I 4r.-'\. ').'" Og SEP ?ffi \-_ HIGH COURT DATED:21 10812025 ORDER WP.No.16668 of 2023 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. @