\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 607 OF 2020 Between: B.V.V. Suryanarayana, S/o Kurmayya, aged 53 years, Occ: LIC and Postal Agen, R/o D. No- 6-2-29, Chinnabazar Street, Srikakulam Town and District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The District Collector Srikakulam, Srikakulam Town and District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of Revenue Divisional Office Srikakulam Town and District. 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur. Andhra Pradesh, 4. Baratam Kurmayya, S/o. late Suryanarayana aged 83 years, Occu: Ex- Municipal Councilor, R/o Prasanti Old age home Near Collectorate Office, Srikakulam ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari call for records pertaining to the proceedings in Lr. No- 958/2019 C dt. 23-10-2019 which may was confirmed by the 1st respondent in File No- REV-L COMIS/16/2019-SUP (LC)-COLSKLM in SR No- 09/2019/LC dt 28-12-2019 as the said order is contrary to The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 and quash the same and it is violation of natural justice and beside being it is arbitrary, oppressive consequently direct the respondents not to evict me from the house bearing No- 6-2-30 and 6-2-31 of Chinnabazar Street, Srikakulam. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings Lr. No; 958/2019 C dt. 23-10-2019 which was confirmed by the 1st respondent in File No: REV-L COMIS/16/2019-SUP (LC)-COLSKLM in SR No: 09/2019/LC dt 28-12-2019 by directing the respondents not to evict from the house bearing No: 6-2-30 & 6-2-31 of Chinnabazar Street, Srikakulam Town. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur. Andhra Pradesh. 2. The District Collector Srikakulam, Srikakulam Town and District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of Revenue Divisional Office Srikakulam Town and District. ...Petitioner AND 1. B.V.V. Suryanarayana, S/o Kurmayya, aged 53 years, Occ: LIC and Postal Agen, R/o D. No- 6-2-29, Chinnabazar Street, Srikakulam Town and District. 2. Baratam Kurmayya, S/o. late Suryanarayana aged 83 years, Occu: Ex- Municipal Councilor, R/o Prasanti Old age home Near Collectorate Office, Srikakulam. (R2 is not necessary party) ...Respondents Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order granted on 05-10-2020 in WP. 607/2020. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Baratam Kurmaiah, S/o. late Suryanarayana aged 83 years, Occu: Ex- Municipal Councilor, R/o Prasanti Old age home Near Collectorate Office, Srikakulam. 1. ...Petitioner AND B.V.V. Suryanarayana, S/o Kurmayya, aged 53 years, Occ: LIC and Postal Agen, R/o D. No- 6-2-29, Chinnabazar Street, Srikakulam Town and District. The District Collector Srikakulam, Srikakulam Town and District. 1. 2. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of Revenue Divisional Office Srikakulam Town and District. 4. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur. Andhra Pradesh ...Respondents Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be \mim SSi. pleased to vacate the interim order dated 08-01-2020 which was extended by an order dt. 05-10-2020 passed by this Honourable Court in WP.No. 607 of 2020. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. B V APARNA LAKSHMl Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI V SUDHAKAR REDDY The Court made the following order: APHC010008282020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] WEDNESDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 607/2020 Between: ...PETITIONER B.v.v. Suryanarayana AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The District Collector Srikakulam and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.BVAPARNA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2.VSUDHAKAR REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER:- Heard Smt. B.V.Aparna Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the 4^^ respondent and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the 1®* to 3^*^ respondents. nd The writ petition is filed to quash the impugned order of the 2 respondent in Lr.No.958/2019 C dated 23.10.2019 which was confirmed by 2. 2 the respondent in File No.REV-L COMlS/16/2019-SUP (LC)-COLSKLM in SR No;09/2019/LC dated 28.12.2019. It is contended that the said orders are The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. contrary to 2007. The brief facts of the case are; The unofficial respondent is the father of the petitioner herein. The unofficial respondent filed a complaint under the provisions of the and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, before 3. Maintenance the District Legal services Authority, against the petitioner stating that his life threat and sought protection to him and his wife. He further stated the petitioner herein has illegally occupied the entire building the unofficial respondent, depriving him of his shelter. Thus is under that his son belonging to from the said property and for a direction to grant sought for eviction maintenance of Rs.10,000/- in favour of the unofficial respondent and his wife. referred to the 3'"'^ respondent. Notices were issued herein and his brother. The 3^^ respondent after going directed the petitioner herein to vacate, the subject The said complaint was to both the petitioner through the records property within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the order. The 3^'^ respondent however, refused to grant maintenance sought by the unofficial respondents. Challenging the said order, directing the writ petitioner to vacate the subject property, the instant writ petition is filed. 4. This court on 08.01.2019, granted interim suspension of the impugned order. 5. The unofficial respondent is aged about 83 years at the time of filing of the writ petition. It is argued that unable to bear the relentless harassment, pressurizing the unofficial respondent to transfer his properties against his will to the petitioner herein, the unofficial respondent and his wife were compelled to stay in a old age home. During the pendency of the writ petition, the wife of the unofficial respondent died. The fact remains that the unofficial respondent’s aged wife died 6. during her last days, she was forced to live out of their home, died out of her home thereby both, the aged unofficial respondent and his wife were unjustly deprived of their rightful living, and deprived of their fundamental right to live. Having regard to the objects of the which includes a decent living. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the authorities under the Act, are under an obligation to see that the senior citizens are protected and they are able to lead a normal life. The finding of fact arrived at by both the authorities is that the subject property is self acquired property of the unofficial respondent purchased vide registered sale deed in the 1971 and the petitioner was sufficiently provided by his father, the unofficial respondent herein. Having regard to the findings arrived at by both the parties, there is no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal and the appellate authority and I do not find any perversity from the order of the 2"'^ respondent, which was confirmed by the 1®^ respondent. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. There 7. shall be no order as to costs. 4 As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. One CC to M/s. B V Aparna Lakshmi Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri V Sudhakar Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copies 4. GSC HIGH COURT DATED:05/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.607 of 2020 an5S5|j^ g 18 MAR 2025 Current oeciion . DISMISSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS