HARBANS KAUR Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has posed a challenged to the orders dated 11.01.2016 and 02.03.2017 passed by the authorities under the Act whereby her application under Section 23 of the Act, has been dismissed.

(2.) A perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority shows that plea of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that sale deed contained no recital to the effect that it would be incumbent upon respondent No.3 to provide basic amenities to the petitioner and to look after her basic needs. It appears the authority was not able to examine the controversy in right perspective. In the judgment reported as 'Sumesh Anand v. Smt. Vinod Anand and others, 2016(5) RCR (Civil) 297,' it has been held as follows:-

(3.) It is evident that the aforesaid judgment was either not cited before the appellate Tribunal or it escaped its notice. In view of same, impugned order is hereby set aside. The appellate authority shall be at liberty to decide the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering the law laid down in Sumesh Anand's case (supra).