GULZAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India in the nature of certiorari seeking setting aside of the order dtd. 17/10/2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 in Case No.14 titled 'Gulzar Sigh Vs. Swarn Kaur and another' and order dtd. 27/3/2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.3 in Case No.02/Senior Citizen/Petition 03/2023 titled 'Swaran Kaur Vs. Jasbir Singh and another'.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.4, who is the mother of the present petitioner, had transferred 1/2 share each of the property in question, in favour of the present petitioner and the respondent No.5, who are the sons of respondent No.4, vide transfer deed dtd. 14/6/2017 (Annexure P-3). In the said transfer deed, it was stated that respondent No.4 is the owner of the property and that the transfer was being made out of her free will and without any fear, with the further stipulation that the beneficiaries i.e. petitioner and respondent No.5 would provide services and basic needs of respondent No.4 according to Sec. 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to "Act of 2007") and in case of failure of doing so, the transfer of the ownership would be cancelled. The petitioner and respondent No.5 having violated the said condition, respondent No.4 moved an application under Sec. 23 of the Act of 2007 for cancellation of the said transfer deed. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Derabassi, District SAS Nagar, vide order dtd. 27/3/2023 (Annexure P-2), after taking into consideration the fact that respondent No.4 was the owner of the property in question and was also unable to work due to her old age and also the fact that the petitioner and respondent No.5 were not providing the basic requirements, allowed the said application and cancelled the transfer deed. A perusal of the order dtd. 27/3/2023 (Annexure P-2) would show that the report of the tehsildar was called for and the jamabandi for the years 2011-12 with respect to the property in question was considered and on the basis of the same, it was held that respondent No.4 was the owner of the property in question. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (J)-cum- Collector, SAS Nagar, who was the appellate authority and the said appeal was also dismissed, vide order dtd. 17/10/2023 (Annexure P-1). In the said order dtd. 17/10/2023, it was observed that respondent No.4 was entitled to claim back her property in accordance with provisions of Sec. 23 of the Act of 2007, which right was reserved by her at the time of transferring the property. It was reiterated that respondent No.4 was the owner of the property in question. The arguments on behalf of respondent No.4 to the effect that the petitioner did not obey the law and always raised fights and also the fact that the petitioner had his own premises and was a government servant and had also purchased two plots, were also noticed. It is the said two orders, which have been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside on two grounds. The first ground being that respondent No.4 was getting Rs.15,000.00 per month as rent and also getting government pension of Rs.15,00.00 per month and thus, her basic needs were being met from the said amount and it could not be said that respondent No.4 could not meet her basic needs. The second argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that on equity, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside as in case the impugned order(s) are not set aside, then, subsequently, respondent No.4 would also have a right to seek possession from the petitioner.