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, dated 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, dated 12.02.2024 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, dated 28.03.2024, 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:-

               “7. Though the partition suit filed by the respondent in O.S.No.172 of 2022 against the petitioners and his sisters before the Hon’ble IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is pending adjudication shall not affect the present case.

               In view of the circumstances stated above, the appeal is allowed and the powers vested under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, the alleged Gift Settlement Deed No.213/2020, dated 22.12.2020 executed by petitioner No.1 in favour of the respondent in respect of the subject lands in Sy.No.515 admeasuring Ac.1.3 guntas, 526/3 admeasuring Acs.3.00 guntas; 527/1 admeasuring Acs.2.14 guntas; 573 admeasuring Ac.1.27 guntas; 525/2 admeasuring Acs.7.19 guntas and 26/1 admeasuring Acs.2.01 guntas, total admeasuring Acs.18.16 guntas, situated at Arrur Village, Valigonda Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District is hereby cancelled. Accordingly, the Joint Sub-Registrar-cum-Tahsildar, Valigonda Mandal is hereby directed to make an appropriate entry in the Bhu Bharati Registration portal in respect of the subject lands.

               8. Since the appeal is disposed, the Interim Order granted on 29.05.2024 to maintain status quo on the schedule property is hereby vacated.

               If any party aggrieved by this order, they may prefer an appeal before the Commissioner/Director, Department for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Senior Citizens and Transgender Persons, Telangana, within thirty (30) days from the date of issue of this order, provided under Rule 21 (3) (d) of the Telangana Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011 (for short “the Rules”) issued vide G.O.MsNo.40, Department for Women, Children, Disabled and Senior Citizens (Prog.I), dated 30.12.2022.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, without there being any powers conferred under the Senior Citizens Act, the action of respondent No.2 in taking cognizance of the appeal filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, is without any foundation and without any procedure contemplated under law and that itself is sufficient to set aside the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, earlier, the unofficial respondents filed a Case bearing No.H/1667/2022 against the petitioner and his wife. During pendency of the said application, the unofficial respondents filed appeal under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act and subsequently, Case No.H/1667/2022 filed before respondent No.3 was withdrawn. He would further submit that the contents of Section 23(1) of Senior Citizens Act do not attract as the registered gift deed does not contain any clause/covenants subjecting the gift to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and another ((2022) 17 SCR 876). It is also the case of the petitioner that, once a right is created in his favour, it cannot be taken away without following due process of law and more particularly in the absence of applicability of Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to allow the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents would submit that as the Presiding Officer of the Special Tribunal was transferred and no orders were passed, the unofficial respondents filed an appeal before respondent No.2 and as respondent No.2 insisted for orders from the Special Tribunal in File No.H/1667/2022, they have withdrawn the said case. He would further submit that the law is very clear and Rule 21 of G.O.Ms.No.49, Department For Women, Children, Disabled and Senior Citizens (DW), dated 28.12.2011 provides for protection of life and property of senior citizens; that there were amendments made to G.O.Ms.No.40 Department For Women, Children, Disabled and Senior Citizens (Prog.II) dated 30.12.2022 and Rule 21(3) was added. For better understanding, Rule 21(3) of G.O.Ms.No.40 dated 30.12.2022 is extracted hereunder:-

               “Rule 21(3) Procedure for eviction from property of Senior Citizen/Parents:

               (a)(i) A senior citizen/parent, may make an application before the Collector & District Magistrate of his/her district, for eviction of his/her children/legal heir from his/her property on account of his/her non-maintenance and/or ill-treatment.

               (ii) The Collector & District Magistrate shall immediately forward such application to the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer for verification of the title of the property and facts of the case within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of such application.

               (iii) The Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer shall immediately submit his/her report to the Collector & District Magistrate for final orders within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the application.

               (iv) The Collector & District Magistrate during summary proceedings for the protection of senior citizens/parents shall consider all the relevant provisions of the Act. If the Collector & District Magistrate is of the opinion that any children/legal heir of a senior citizen /parent and/or ill-treating him/her/them and yet is occupying the property of the senior citizen/parent and that they should be evicted, the Collector & District Magistrate shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause as to why an order of eviction should not be issued against them/him/her.

               (v) The notice shall;-

               (i) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made; and

               (ii) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who are, or may be, in occupation of, or claim interest in, the property, to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a date not earlier than ten (10) days from the date of issue thereof.

               Rule 3(b) Eviction order from property of senior citizen/parent:

               If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance to the notice and any evidence he/she may produce in support of the same and after giving him/her a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Collector & District Magistrate is satisfied that the eviction order needs to be made, the Collector & District Magistrate may make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the property shall be vacated.”

6. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents would further submit that the petitioner had cleverly not added all the properties in the suit schedule property and respondent No.2, who is vested with the power/ authority as per law, had passed the impugned order to protect the rights of the unofficial respondents, that too in the light of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.8148 of 2024. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned proceedings and seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.

7. Before adverting to the contentions of either of the parties, it is necessary to extract relevant recitals of the Gift Deed bearing document No.213 of 2020, dated 22.12.2020, which reads as under:-

               “THIS GIFT DEED WITNESSES AS FOLLOWS:

               1. The Donor is the absolute owner and possessor of the schedule property. The Donor is entitled to alienate by way of Gift.

               2. The Donor having natural love and affection towards the Donee. The Donor has decided to Gift the scheduled property to the Donee and make the Donee absolute owner by executing this Deed. Accordingly, the Donor hereby transfer, convey and assign the schedule property in favour of the Donee to have and to hold the same as absolute owner with all rights along with title hitherto enjoyed by the Donor without any interference or disturbance from anybody.

               3. The Donor herein has delivered the peaceful physical and vacant possession of the schedule property to the Donee along with all title Deeds.

               4. The Donor declares that the said property is free from all encumbrances, charges, prior sale, gift, mortgage, lien, court litigations and attachments.

               5. The Donor has paid all the taxes and charges up to date to the respective departments in respect of the schedule property.

               6. The proposed land transfer is not in contravention of the following laws:

               a. The Telangana Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973.”

8. A careful reading of the above recitals would reveal that the donor i.e, respondent No.4, out of love and affection has executed the gift deed in favour of the petitioner. There is no condition in the gift deed that the transferee/donee shall provide basic needs to the transferor/donor and failure to provide such necessities by the transferee/done, the transfer of property made in favour of the donee shall be deemed to be declared to be fraud or coercion and liable for cancellation. The Senior Citizens Act was enacted with a laudable object for providing maintenance and welfare of senior citizens and parents taking into consideration the modern trends in the joint family system and a large number of elderly people are not being looked after by their family members in providing financial assistance and attending medical emergencies. This legislation empowers the Senior Citizens to cancel the gift deeds executed by them in favour of their children/near relatives and declare such transactions as void.

9. Invoking Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act and relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit and others (2025 INSC 20), the Appellate Tribunal declared that any transfer of property by a senior citizen subject to the condition of maintenance is deemed void if the transferee fails to provide for the needs of the transferor. Accordingly, the Appellate Tribunal cancelled the Gift Deed executed in favor of the petitioner and directed the Sub-Registrar-cum-Tahsildar, Valigonda Mandal to make an appropriate entry in the Bhu Bharati Registration portal in respect of the subject land.

10. Therefore, it is appropriate to refer to Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, which reads as under:-

               “23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances.—

               (1) Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal.

               (2) Where any senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate and such estate or part thereof is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee has notice of the right, or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the transferee for consideration and without notice of right.

               (3) If, any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rights under subsections (1) and (2), action may be taken on his behalf by any of the organisation referred to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 5.”

11. A careful perusal of above provision makes it clear that, for invoking Section 23, the following pre-requisites have to be fulfilled i.e, 1) The transfer must have been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor; and 2) the transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs to the transferor. If both the aforesaid conditions are satisfied by a legal fiction, the transfer shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or undue influence. Such a transfer then becomes voidable at the instance of the transferor and the Maintenance Tribunal gets jurisdiction to declare the transfer as void.

12. Further, in Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and another (1 supra), wherein it was observed as under:

               “13. When a senior citizen parts with his or her property by executing a gift or a release or otherwise in favour of his or her near and dear ones, a condition of looking after the senior citizen is not necessarily attached to it. On the contrary, very often, such transfers are made out of love and affection without any expectation in return. Therefore, when it is alleged that the conditions mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 23 are attached to a transfer, existence of such conditions must be established before the Tribunal.”

13. A careful reading of the recitals of the gift deed reveals that the subject property was gifted to the petitioner purely out of love and affection. Since the conditions prescribed under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act have not been fulfilled for cancellation of the registered gift deed executed by Respondent No.4, the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and Another (1 supra). The question that fell for consideration is whether the matter attracts the provisions of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act and respondent No.2 had jurisdiction to cancel the gift deed executed by respondent No.4. In the opinion of this Court, the requirements under Section 23(1) of the Act are not satisfied by respondent No.4.

14. Apart from that, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents that, a perusal of the order in W.P.No.8148 of 2024 would show that this Court, while disposing of the writ petition, directed respondent No.2 to consider and decide the application filed by the unofficial respondents under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, strictly in accordance with law. The basic fact that the unofficial respondents have fulfilled the requirements of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act at initial stage has been missed out and thereafter, the appellate authority has passed a detailed order and there is no mention on the aspect of maintainability of the appeal under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act in the absence of approaching the original authority i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer constituted under the Senior Citizens At. Therefore, this Court opines that the appellate authority ought to have examined the said aspect before passing any final order. Without taking into consideration the said aspect, the impugned orders were passed by the appellate authority. Further, the case of Urmila Dixit (2 supra) is not at all relevant to the facts of this case, as the entire issue lands on the four corners of law and maintainability of the appeal before respondent No.2.

15. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned order, dated 10.11.2025, passed by respondent No.2 in Case No.C/769/2024. The matter is remanded back to the original authority i.e., respondent No.3, who in turn shall examine the case of the petitioner meticulously duly taking note of all the aspects including the civil suit filed by the petitioner as well as non-inclusion of all the properties and also the withdrawal of Case in File No.H/1667/2022, dated 0108.2024 and pass the orders by following the law contemplated, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within the time stipulated under the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act.

16. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.