[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Sri. Syed Abdulla vs The State Of Telangana on 3 December, 2025
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.1385 OF 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT 03.12.2025
Betweeen:
Sri Syed Abdulla
... appellant/petitioner
And
1. The State of Telangana,
Rept., by its Prl Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad and four other.
...respondents/respondents.
Mr.Shaik Ahmed Ali, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
Mr.M Mehdi Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 (Online).
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an order dated 17.10.2025
passed by a learned Single Judge by allowing and disposing of
W.P.No.25625 of 2024 filed by the appellant herein by directing
the appellate authority under The Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ('the 2007 Act') to
examine the case of the petitioner upon issuing notices to the
petitioner and the unofficial respondents and in terms of section
23(2) of the 2007 Act and to pass the appropriate orders,
preferably within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of
that order.
2. The appellant before us is the writ petitioner, who was
before the learned Single Judge with a prayer for a Writ of
Mandamus against the order passed by the appellate authority
on 14.08.2025 where by the appellant's Appeal before the
Appellate Tribunal under the 2007 Act was dismissed and the
appellant was advised to approach the competent Civil Court for
redressal of his grievance. In the impugned order, the learned
Single Judge was of the view that the appellate authority ought
to have examined the case of the appellant under section 23(2)
of the 2007 Act which specifically deals with setting aside the
Deed of Gift. Paragraph No.4 of the impugned order would make
it clear that the appellant/writ petitioner had specifically
submitted that the petitioner is the Senior Citizen, aged 90
years and the appellate authority failed to give due
consideration to the document filed in favour of the appellant
under the entireity of section 23 of the 2007 Act.
3. Hence, we do not find unreasonable on the part of the
learned Single Judge to remand the matter back to the appellate
authority for examining the dispute afresh, also in terms of
section 23 (2) of the 2007 Act, upon due notices being given to
all the parties and dispose of the matter within a reasonable
time frame. In fact, we fail to see how the appellant could have
been aggrieved by the impugned order when the order under
challenge before the Writ Court was directed to be reexamined
by the appellate authority in terms of the appellant's grievance,
as expressed before the learned Single Judge.
4. The unofficial respondents are represented.
5. We do not find any scope for interference in the impugned
order.
6. W.A.No.1385 of 2025, along with all connected
applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
__________________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
______________________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
Date: 03.12.2025
EDS
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.1385 OF 2025
DATE 03.12.2025
