DHARIYAPPAGOUDA PATIL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petition is filed by the subsequent transferee who is aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2, the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner entertained an application filed under Sec. 23 of the Senior Citizens Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and subsequently nullified a registered sale deed executed by respondent Nos.4 to 6 for a valuable sale consideration. This order was passed behind the back of the petitioner, a bona fide purchaser who had acquired the property for a valuable sale consideration.

(2.) The impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is not only erroneous but also outside the jurisdiction conferred upon the Assistant Commissioner under the Act. Sec. 23 of the Act empowers authorities to declare void any transfer of property made by a senior citizen after the commencement of the Act, but only if such transfer includes a condition that the transferee shall provide for the basic amenities and physical needs of the senior citizen. The records in the present case reveal that the property in question was allotted to Basvaraj, the husband of respondent No.4-Sharada, under a registered partition deed documented at Annexure-D. This clearly indicates that the property transfer was legitimate and did not fall under the conditions specified in Sec. 23 of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner's decision to nullify the sale deed, executed for a valuable sale consideration, oversteps the boundaries of his jurisdiction and misinterprets the provisions of the Act.

(3.) Despite the court permitting the petitionerpurchaser and respondent No.3 to settle the matter amicably, the court must acknowledge that respondent No.2 exceeded his powers by entertaining the application under Sec. 23 of the Act and nullifying a valid registered sale deed. Sec. 23 of the Act provides for the authority to declare a gift deed void only if certain conditions are met. None of these conditions were present in this case. The Assistant Commissioner's action thus represents a misuse of the Act's provisions, leading to an unjust financial burden on the petitioner, who had to negotiate and settle the matter by paying an additional Rs.8,50,000.00 to respondent No.3.