High Court · 2025

Judgment

2. 2

7. B.

9. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretaria-t Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Commissioner, Social Wetfare Department, Telangana, Hyderabad. The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Hyderabad, Hyderabad District The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nampally, Hyderabad The Commissioner Police, Hyderabad, Hyderabad. The Deputy Commissioner Police, Hyderabad East Zone, Hyderabad Station House Officer, Afzalgunj Police Station, Hyderabad Y.Sudhir, S/o Surender, Aged about 37, Occ. Private,Employee, Rl/o H.No-S- 1-1431A, Poosal Basthi, Putli Bowli P.O. Hyderabad-095. Y.Pramila, Wo. Y.Surender, Occ: House wife, Age 64 yqa-r-s, R/o' H.No.s' 1-143tA, Poosal Basthi, Putti Bowli P.O., Hyderabad-500095. (R9 is impleaded as per C.O. dt. 19.02.2025 in I'A.No.1/2024) ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in tho circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned appeal order of the Respondent No.3 in vide Appeal Case No.A/916t2O22, dated '1 1-08-2023, without considering the facts of appeal of the petitioner as per the rules 20(2)(i) of The Telangana Maintenance of Parents and senior citizens Rules, 2011 and as per the section 2(f), 22(2) and 32(2\(t) of The Maintenance of Welfare of Parents and Senior 7 Citizens Act, 2OO7 and also non considering amendments made in G.O.Ms.No.40, dated 30-12-2022 under Telangana Maintenance of parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011, is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unjust and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and Consequenily to set aside the impugned appeal order passed by the Respondent No.3 and also direct the Respondent No.3 to consider the rule 20(2)(t of The Telangana Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 201 .l and the sections 2(I),22(Z) and 32(2)(f) of The Maintenance of Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and also to consider amendments made in G.O.Ms.No.40, dated 30-12-2022 under Telangana Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 201.,l and to conduct the proper trial and detailed . inquiry and pass eviction order to evict the Respondent No.8 from the Petitioner house. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned appeal order passed by the Respondent No.B and also direct the Respondent No.3 to consider the rule 2O(2)(t of The Telangana Maintenance of Parents and Senior citizens Rules, 20'l'l and the sections 2(f), 22(2) and 32(2)('f) of rhe Maintenance of welfare of parents and Senior citizens Act, 2007 and also to consider amendments made in G.O.Ms.No.40, dated 30'12-2022 under Teiangana Maintenance of parents and senior citizens Rules, 2011 and to conduct the proper trial and detailed inquiry and pass eviction order to evict the Respondent No.8 from the petitioner house. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1, 3 & 4: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Gp FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent No.s to 7: Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.8: SRI K.R.SUNIL KUMAR Counsel for the ReSpondent No.9: Ms. CH.VIJAyA LAXMI The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRJ JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26421 of 2023 ORDER: . This writ petition is liled seeking to declare the impugned appeal order of respondent No.3 in Appeal Case No.A / 916 I 2022, dated | 1.O8.2023, without considering the facts of appeal of the petitioner as per the rules 20(2)(i) of the Telangana Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011 (for short, 'Rules, 2011) and as per Sections 2(f)' 22(21 and 32(21(f) of the Maintenance of Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2OO7 (for short, 'the Act, 2OO7) and the action of respondent No.3 in not considering the amendments made in G.O.Ms.No.40, dated 30.L2-2O22, as illegal, arbitrary and for other appropriate reliefs. It is stated that the petitioner, who is a senior citizen 2. and a retired government employee, filed an application under Section 23 of the Act, 2OO7 before the Special Tribunai constituted under the provisions of the Act, 2007. The learned Tribunal, after examining the entire evidence and considering the submissions of the petitioner as well as the respondents therein has found that the petitioner behaviour -..:. 2 is different with his wife and the respondents and the contents mentioned in the application filed before the authority founds not so genuine, therefore, rejected the said application advising the applicant to maintain cordial relationship with family members. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the original authority, the petitioner has filed an appeal on the file of respondent No.3-the Appellate Tribunal- cum-District Collector and Magistrate, Hyderabad. The Appellate Tribunal, uide order dated I 1.O8.2O23 in Case No.A/91612022, }:as passed the following order: "After going through the contentions of the Appellant and Respondent and the materials available on record and on the pleadings of both sides, I do hereby order that the property is reported to be ancestral and there are cases in courts pending settlement on this issue. The appellant is a Retd., Government employee getting sufiicient pension in addition to the rent from the ground floor of the building. The appellant, and his wife, who is staying with her son, are both the senior citizens. Under the circumstanccs, it is advised to the Appellant to adjust with his wife and son, and in the same way the wife and son are advised to adjust with the head of the family. This tribunal can only decide a disputes between Parents/Senior Citizens versus Children/ Relatives. Even though son is there, he is tqking care of his mother, who is a Senior Citizen. This case is between Two Senior Citizens (Even though Son is there, who is supporting his mother). Hence, the case is disposed off, as it is outside the purview of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2OO7 and the Rules made I here u nder". ----7 3 3 This Court has carefully examined the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also verihed the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is having threat perception in the hands of respondent No.8, who js the son of the petitioner. Learned counsel also stated that respondent No.g developed a grudge over the property in possession of the petitioner and making efforts to dispossess the petitioner from the said property, which necessitated the petitioner to make an application under the Section 23 of the Act, 2OOT and when the said authority has not considered the grievance of the petitioner. he was constrained to file an appeal before the appellate \ authority.

5. Prima facie, it appears that as per the orders of original authority as well as the appellate authority, the petitioner is a retired government employee and is receiving pension. The property claimed by the petitioner for eviction of respondent No.8 is an ancestral property ald there are civil cases pending between the petitioner and respondent No.g before the various forums. I I 4

6. For the said reasons, this Court is of the opinion that both the authorities have rightly come to the conclusion that these issues cannot be decided in an application filed under the provisions of the Act, 2OO7, except advising the parties to maintain cordial relationship. Therefore, this Court has not seen any grounds warrantihg interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, this Court having found that these issues can be settled amicably in the Mediation Centre, the petitioner is permitted to approach the Mediation Centre to settle the disputes. In the event of the petitioner approaching the Mediation Centre, the Mediation Centre is directed to extend all the possibilities for re-union of the parties and resolving the disputes. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. //TRUE COPYII SD/. T.TIRUMALA DEVI DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR , Advocate ucI One CC to SRI K.R.SUN|L KUMAR , Advocate One CC to Ms. CH.VIJAYA LAXMT , Advocate I PUCI Two CCs to cP FOR REVENUE High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad tourl Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana et Hyderabad lourl Two CCs to GP FOR SOCTAL WELFARE High Cou( for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Coptes To, 1 2. 3 4.

5. b. W BSR HIGH COURT CVBRJ DATED:1910212025 1 '6E STrT e, o ( t i 2l ,' i jJ'5 1: c ORDER WP.No.26421 ot 2023 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS \\ x a.)// b $ \\