Madras High Court
K.R.Pruthiviraj vs The Secretary on 27 March, 2023
W.P.No.9386 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.03.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.9386 of 2023
and
W.M.P.Nos.9480 & 9481 of 2023
K.R.Pruthiviraj ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Revenue,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Coimbatore District.
3.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer,
Coimbatore South Division,
Coimbatore District.
4.N.Rajagopalan
5.S.S. Kalaimani
6.R.Brinda ... Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9386 of 2023
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to the 3rd respondent in P.M.7777/2022/A1 dated 24.02.2023 and
quash the same and accordingly, direct the 4th and 5th respondents to
come and stay along with the petitioner at Chennai within a time frame to
be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Nethaji
For Respondents : Mr.U.Baranidharan
Additional Government Pleader
[R1 to R3]
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the third respondent
in P.M.7777/2022/A1 dated 24.02.2023 and quash the same and
accordingly, direct the respondents 4 and 5 to come and stay along with
the petitioner at Chennai within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
2. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner's parents,
respondents 4 and 5 herein, executed a settlement deed in favour of the
petitioner settling a house property to an extent 2820 sq.ft. Subsequently,
the petitioner instructed the parents to vacate the premises for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9386 of 2023
construction of the house. As per the request made by the petitioner, they
have vacated the premises, however, thereafter, no construction activity
was carried out by the petitioner. Hence, the parents made a complaint
before the original authority under the Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, for cancellation of settlement
deed. Pursuant to which, the original authority passed the impugned
order in P.M.7777/2022/A1 dated 24.02.2023 and directed the petitioner
to ensure the residence of the Senior Citizens/parents in the house
property till their life time. Aggrieved by the said order, the above writ
petition is filed before this Court for appropriate directions.
3. Mr.P.Nethaji, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is the son of respondents 4 and 5 and the sixth respondent is
the sister of the petitioner and daughter of respondents 4 and 5. At the
instigation of the sixth respondent, the petitioner's parents made a
complaint for cancellation of the settlement deed. The original authority
did not pass any adverse order against the petitioner, however, issued a
direction to the petitioner to ensure the residence of the parents in the
property settled in favour of the petitioner, which is not sustainable one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9386 of 2023
and the respondents have no power to pass such order and they have
power only to issue direction to maintain the parents. However, the
impugned order is passed without any jurisdiction.
4. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as
per the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, the
petitioner have no right of appeal before the appellate authority and the
remedy is available only before this Court and in the present writ
petition, the original authority did not issue direction to cancel the
settlement deed. However, they issued a direction to the petitioner to
ensure the residence of the parents in the property, which was settled in
favour of the petitioner. The entire dispute is civil in nature and the
parents has to approach the concerned Civil Court. Instead of that, they
made a complaint before the original authority under the Maintenance
and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which is not
sustainable one. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders.
5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that, if the parents not able to maintain them, they are entitled to file an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9386 of 2023
application before the original authority under the the Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. However, the fourth
respondent is receiving a sum of Rs.50,000/- and the parents are
receiving nearly a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as pension. In support of his
contention, he relied upon the judgment passed in the case of
M.Venugopal Vs. The District Magistrate-cum-District Collector,
Kanyakumari District & two Ors. reported in 2014 (5) CTC 162.
6. Heard Mr.P.Nethaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing
for the respondents 1 to 3 and perused the materials available on record.
7. The facts in the present case is not in dispute. Admittedly, the
relationship of the petitioner and the respondents 4 and 5 is not in dispute
and the respondents 4 and 5 are retired doctors. They are receiving
pension and a residential property was owned by them, subsequently,
which was settled in favour of the petitioner. However, it is alleged that
the petitioner requested the respondents 4 and 5 to vacate the premises
enabling him to construct the house. Since the construction was not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9386 of 2023
carried out by the petitioner, the fourth respondent made a complaint
before the third respondent. Pursuant to which, the third respondent
issued a direction to the petitioner to ensure the residence of the fourth
respondent in the disputed property. However, the third respondent did
not issue a direction to the Registration Department or the Revenue
officials for cancellation of settlement deed. The third respondent has
issued a direction to ensure the shelter of the fourth respondent in the
property, which was settled in favour of the petitioner. The impugned
order passed by the third respondent is perfectly in order and hence, the
same cannot be interfered with. Therefore, this Court cannot pass any
affirmative order in favour of the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
27.03.2023
Index : Yes / No (2/2)
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No
sp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9386 of 2023
To
1.The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Revenue,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Coimbatore District.
3.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer,
Coimbatore South Division,
Coimbatore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9386 of 2023
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
sp
W.P.No.9386 of 2023
27.03.2023
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
