RAM KUMAR Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-CUM-APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dtd. 1/9/2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.1 vide which appeal of respondent No.3 (Annexure P-3) has been allowed and the order passed by respondent No.2 dtd. 30/3/2022 (Annexure P-2) has been set aside.

(2.) Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner who is a senior citizen and is father of respondent No.3 had filed an application dtd. 8/4/2021 for the cancellation of the transfer deed dtd. 26/12/2019 (Annexure P-1) and the subsequent mutation, which was executed by the petitioner in favour of his son-respondent No.3. In the said application, it was specifically stated that the petitioner was 63 years of age and was a senior citizen and was the owner of the property in question by virtue of a sale deed 22/12/2004 and had constructed a two storey building/house on the plot. It is further stated that respondent No.3 had assured the applicant- petitioner that he would provide the petitioner with all the basic needs and would also maintain him and on the said assurance, the property was transferred by the petitioner in favour of respondent No.3. It is further averred that after the said transfer, the real character of respondent No.3 came out and he became cruel towards the petitioner and started misbehaving and disrespecting him and even started beating up the petitioner and threw him out of the house in question after locking the door of the house and threatened the petitioner that in case, he comes to the house then he would break his legs and since then, the petitioner has been staying in a rented accommodation. It is further averred in the said application that the petitioner has a lung infection and is diabetic and is undergoing treatment at Tulip Hospital, Sonipat and is regularly taking medicine. A reply was filed to the said application in which the aspect of the petitioner being a senior citizen and also being owner of the said property was not disputed. It was further averred in the said reply that the petitioner was residing with the other son and daughter-in-law in a rented accommodation and thus, it was admitted that the petitioner is not residing with respondent No.3. The transfer deed has also been annexed alongwith the present writ petition as Annexure P-1 and a perusal of the same would show that in the said transfer deed, it was specifically mentioned that in case of non- maintenance of the petitioner, the petitioner would have a right to cancel the document and take back the property under Sec. 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 2007 Act). The SDM-cum-Chairman, Maintenance Tribunal, Sonipat vide order dtd. 30/3/2022 (Annexure P-2) had come to the conclusion that the property was transferred by petitioner to respondent No.3 on the condition that respondent No.3 would provide basic amenities to the petitioner which he had refused to provide and that the petitioner was suffering from a lung infection and also had sugar problem and required constant medication and since the petitioner was the owner of the property and the transfer was conditional, the application was allowed and the transfer deed was cancelled and it was further observed that respondent No.3 would handover the possession of the property in question to the petitioner. The appeal filed by respondent No.3 was allowed by the Collector, Sonipat vide order dtd. 1/9/2022 (Annexure P-4) on the grounds which were beyond the ambit of Sec. 23 of the 2007 Act. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Notice of motion was issued in the present writ petition by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 12/10/2022 and operation of the impugned order was stayed. On 17/8/2023, the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre on the basis of the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No.3 to the effect that there is a possibility of compromise. The order dtd. 17/8/2023 is reproduced hereinbelow:-