K.SRINIVASA REDDY Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:- "..to issue an appropriate writ or direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records relating to and in connection with the 2nd respondent's order, dtd. 10/11/2025 in Case No.C/769/2024 and quash the same and/or pass such order.."

(2.) Heard Sri Pinni Venkata Adithya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Yadagiri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3; Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel representing Ms.R.Bhavanarishi, learned counsel for the caveators-respondent Nos.4 and 5 and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 8 and with their consent, this writ petition is being taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who is the son of respondent Nos.4 and 5, filed a suit for partition and separate possession against respondent Nos.4 and 5 and other children of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and also subsequent purchasers of part of the property, which is in dispute vide O.S.No.172 of 2022, pending on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, during pendency of the said suit, at the instance of other claimants to the property and to defeat the rights of the petitioner, respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed an application, dtd. 12/2/2024 before respondent No.2 under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short "the Senior Citizens Act"), seeking to cancel the Gift Settlement Deed bearing document No.213/2020 and to restore possession of the land admeasuring Acs.18.16 guntas in Sy.Nos.515, 26, 527, 573, 25 and 526/1, situated at Arrur Village, Valigonda Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District, as the petitioner failed to perform his part of obligation under the said document and not provided any maintenance to his parents as agreed by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, when respondent No.2 did not consider the said application, respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed W.P.No.8148 of 2024. By an order, dtd. 28/3/2024, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing respondent No.2 to consider and decide the aforesaid application strictly in accordance with law by putting the parties on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. He would further submit that the said order is innocuous in nature, wherein this Court had specifically directed the said authority to pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law. Therefore, it can be inferred that this Court directed the said Authority to strictly follow the procedure under the Senior Citizens Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, acting on the order passed by this Court, respondent No.2 had passed the impugned order in Case No.C.769/2024 and the operative portion of the impugned order is as under:-