Beer Fathima BeeviW/o. Iqbal v. State Of Tamil NaduRep. By The District Collector
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directs the third respondent to enquire into the complaint of the petitioner forwarded to him by the second respondent on 13.08.2025 by summoning the fifth respondent and to conclude the same, within a period…
Judgment
WP No. 38842 of 2025__________Page1 of 6IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 11-06-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANIWP No. 38842 of 2025and WMP.No.43464 of 2025& WMP.No.16128 of 2026 Beer Fathima BeeviW/o. Iqbal, No.138/5, Vanniyar Street, Padi, Chennai-600 050..Petitioner(s)Vs1.State Of Tamil NaduRep. By The District Collector, Chennai District Collector Office, Beach Road, George Town, Chennai.
State Of Tamil NaduRep. By The Revenue Divisional Officer, North Chennai Revenue Division, Puzhal, Chennai-663.State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By The Commissioner Of PoliceCentral Crime Branch Land And Dispute, Avadi, Chennai.
State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By The Sub RegistrarThiruvetriyor Sub Registrar Office, Chennai.
I. Sahul Hamed,S/o. Iqbal, No.4b, 8a West Maada Veethi, Kaladipet, Tiruvottiyur, Chennai-19..Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 38842 of 2025__________Page2 of 6Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed in Na.Ka. No.A7/1879/2025 dated 13.08.2025 passed by respondent No.2, and quash the same as illegal and subsequently direct the respondent No.2, declare the settlement document which was registered in Thiruvetriyor sub Registrar Office in favour of the respondent No.5, via document No.3845/2014 as void. For Petitioner(s):Mr.R.VenkatesanFor Respondent(s):Mr.M.Sivavarthanan, Govt. Counsel for R1 to R4ORDERThe impugned order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka. No.A7/1879/2025 dated 13.08.2025, is put under challenge in the present Writ Petition.
Further, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the second respondent to declare the settlement document which was registered in Thiruvetriyor Sub Registrar Office in favour of the fifth respondent No.4, via document No.3845/2014 as void.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record. Since no adverse order is to be passed as against the fifth respondent, notice to him is dispensed with.3. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the mother of the fifth respondent and out of love and affection, she gave a settlement deed vide Doc. No.3845 dated 06.06.2014 in favour of the fifth respondent. However, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 38842 of 2025__________Page3 of 6subsequently the fifth respondent failed to take care of the petitioner, which made her to sent a complaint to the respondents 1 and 2 to cancel the settlement deed given by her to the fifth respondent.
The second respondent forwarded the complaint to the third respondent to enquire into the matter without cancelling the settlement deed given by the petitioner. Hence, the present Writ Petition.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the settlement deed was irrevocable when there is a complaint given to the second respondent, it is the duty cast upon the second respondent to enquire into the matter but he has simply forwarded the same to the third respondent/Commissioner of Police and therefore, he prayed this Court for appropriate orders.5. The learned Government Counsel submitted that the second respondent has forwarded the complaint to the third respondent on the ground that the settlement deed is irrevocable and he has no power to cancel the settlement deed and the matter is only with regard to the maintenance amount payable to the petitioner by the fifth respondent, however the same was refused by the petitioner.
Admittedly, the petitioner has given a settlement deed in favour of the fifth respondent in the year 2014 and after lapse of 11 years, since the fifth https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 38842 of 2025__________Page4 of 6respondent did not care of her, she wanted to cancel the settlement deed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. However on perusal of the settlement deed, it is seen that it is an irrevocable one and also that the petitioner refused to receive the maintenance amount from the fifth respondent, in this backdrop, the second respondent has forwarded the complaint to the third respondent for appropriate action and therefore, the action of the second respondent cannot be found fault with.
Operative part
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directs the third respondent to enquire into the complaint of the petitioner forwarded to him by the second respondent on 13.08.2025 by summoning the fifth respondent and to conclude the same, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.11-06-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoDP https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 38842 of 2025__________Page5 of 6To1.State Of Tamil NaduRep. By The District Collector, Chennai District Collector Office, Beach Road, George Town, Chennai. 2. State Of Tamil NaduRep. By The Revenue Divisional Officer, North Chennai Revenue Division, Puzhal, Chennai-663.State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By The Commissioner Of PoliceCentral Crime Branch Land And Dispute, Avadi, Chennai. 4. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By The Sub RegistrarThiruvetriyor Sub Registrar Office, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 38842 of 2025__________Page6 of 6M.DHANDAPANI, J.DPWP No. 38842 of 202511-06-2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.