CWP-5889 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Kaushlya Devi Union Territory Chandigarh CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the order dated (Annexure P District Maintenance short, ‘the Act of 2007) 2. petitioner 22 and 23 House No.869, Tarkhan 5889-2017 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Kaushlya Devi Versus Union Territory Chandigarh and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate, Mr. Vaibhav Garg, Advocate, Ms. Amarpreet Kooner, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Parminder Singh Kanwar, Additional Standing Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate, for the respondent-U.T., Chandigarh. Mr. Souabh, Advocate, for Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral) Through the instant writ petition, as cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the order dated (Annexure P-7), passed by the learned District District Magistrate, U.T. Chandigarh- nance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, (for short, ‘the Act of 2007), is put to challenge Briefly put, the facts of the case are that petitioner (Smt. Kaushlya Devi), filed an application under 22 and 23 of the Act of 2007, seeking protection of life and property, i.e. House No.869, Tarkhana Wala, Mani Majra, U.T., IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-5889-2017 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.08.2025 ….Petitioner ….Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Advocate, and Ms. Amarpreet Kooner, Advocate, Mr. Parminder Singh Kanwar, Additional Standing Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate, U.T., Chandigarh. Advocate, Through the instant writ petition, as cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 15.12.2016 ), passed by the learned District Commissioner-cum- -respondent No.2, under the of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, (for , is put to challenge. Briefly put, the facts of the case are that the applicant- filed an application under Sections 21, seeking protection of life and property, i.e. ala, Mani Majra, U.T., Chandigarh, at the 5 ….Respondents Mr. Parminder Singh Kanwar, Additional Standing Counsel, Through the instant writ petition, as cast under Article 15.12.2016 - , under the of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, (for - Sections 21, seeking protection of life and property, i.e. at the AMIT KUMAR 2025.08.21 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-5889 hands of private respondents (her son and daughter analyzing the material on record of both the parties, respondent No.2 concluded that the applicant not prove on record respondent No.1 Further, the applicant is getting accommodation to reside. Accordingly, the application was disposed of, however, protection of life of the applicant, besides directing respondents to ta petitioner has approached this Court, 3. learned counsel for the parties. 4. to refer to same reads as under 5889-2017 (O&M) -2- hands of private respondents (her son and daughter analyzing the material on record, and the submissions adv of both the parties, respondent No.2 concluded that the applicant prove on record any material, which even remotely suggest respondent No.1 has grabbed the property in question fraudulently. Further, the applicant is getting family pension, and has sufficient accommodation to reside. Accordingly, the application was disposed of, however, with a direction to the authorities concerned to ensure ection of life of the applicant, besides directing respondents to take care of the applicant. petitioner has approached this Court, for quashing This Court has heard the rival submissions advance learned counsel for the parties. Before embarking upon the merits of to refer to the order dated 11.08.2025, as reads as under:- “The perusal of the order dated 22.3.2017, reflects that a civil suit qua the property in question was filed by the petitioner, and is already pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to apprise this Court the civil suit, so preferred by the petitioner, and he request for adjournment to have apt instructions. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the sale deed in the instant case was executed much prior to the commencement of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior the application preferred by the petitioner is maintainable. hands of private respondents (her son and daughter-in-law). After and the submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties, respondent No.2 concluded that the applicant could which even remotely suggests that grabbed the property in question fraudulently. family pension, and has sufficient accommodation to reside. Accordingly, the application was disposed of, authorities concerned to ensure ection of life of the applicant, besides directing the private ke care of the applicant. Aggrieved, the applicant- for quashing the impugned order. has heard the rival submissions advanced by Before embarking upon the merits of the case, it is necessary as drawn by this Court, and the The perusal of the order dated 22.3.2017, reflects suit qua the property in question was filed by the pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to apprise this Court about the status of the civil suit, so preferred by the petitioner, and he made a request for adjournment to have apt instructions. Learned counsel for the respondents-UT, Chandigarh that the sale deed in the instant case was executed commencement of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007, therefore, the application preferred by the petitioner is not After anced on behalf could that grabbed the property in question fraudulently. family pension, and has sufficient accommodation to reside. Accordingly, the application was disposed of, authorities concerned to ensure private - by the case, it is necessary and the The perusal of the order dated 22.3.2017, reflects suit qua the property in question was filed by the pending. Learned counsel for the about the status of made a Chandigarh that the sale deed in the instant case was executed commencement of the Maintenance and Citizen Act, 2007, therefore, not AMIT KUMAR 2025.08.21 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-5889 5. the Court that the civil suit preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. He has produced a copy of the judgment dated 10.07.2024, rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, which is taken on record as ‘Annexure A’. 6. complaint as well as the civil suit on the ground that her son has misrepresented her and got the sale deed his favour both the forums. No cogent proof, in this regard, has been placed on record even in the present proceedings. 7. counsel for the respondents, that since the sale deed was executed much prior to the c preferred by the applicant significance. Bench of this Court Commissioner, Mansa & Others), relevant observations read as under 5889-2017 (O&M) -3- Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks adjournment to address arguments on this issue, and also to inform about the fate of the civil suit. Adjourned to 18.8.2025. To be shown in the urgent list. It is made clear that on the adjourned date, no adjournment shall be granted to either of the parties. In response, learned counsel for respondent No.3 inform the Court that the civil suit preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. He has produced a copy of the judgment dated 10.07.2024, rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, which is taken on record as ‘Annexure A’. Primarily, the applicant-petitioner has complaint as well as the civil suit on the ground that her son has misrepresented her and got the sale deed his favour. However, she has miserably failed to prove her case before oth the forums. No cogent proof, in this regard, has been placed on record even in the present proceedings. Apart from the above, the argument raised by learned counsel for the respondents, that since the sale deed was executed much prior to the commencement of the Act of 2007, therefore, the application preferred by the applicant-petitioner was not maintainable, assumes significance. This issue has already been dealt with, by a Co of this Court in CWP-8781-2016 (Ranjit Singh Vs. Commissioner, Mansa & Others), decided on 07.04.2025 relevant observations read as under:- ed counsel for the petitioner seeks adjournment address arguments on this issue, and also to inform about Adjourned to 18.8.2025. To be shown in the urgent list. It is made clear that on the adjourned date, no all be granted to either of the parties.” In response, learned counsel for respondent No.3 informs the Court that the civil suit preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. He has produced a copy of the judgment dated 10.07.2024, rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, which petitioner has preferred the complaint as well as the civil suit on the ground that her son has misrepresented her and got the sale deed dated 03.10.2005, executed in . However, she has miserably failed to prove her case before oth the forums. No cogent proof, in this regard, has been placed on Apart from the above, the argument raised by learned counsel for the respondents, that since the sale deed was executed much ommencement of the Act of 2007, therefore, the application petitioner was not maintainable, assumes This issue has already been dealt with, by a Coordinate 2016 (Ranjit Singh Vs. Deputy decided on 07.04.2025, and the ed counsel for the petitioner seeks adjournment address arguments on this issue, and also to inform about It is made clear that on the adjourned date, no s the Court that the civil suit preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. He has produced a copy of the judgment dated 10.07.2024, rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, which the complaint as well as the civil suit on the ground that her son has , executed in . However, she has miserably failed to prove her case before oth the forums. No cogent proof, in this regard, has been placed on Apart from the above, the argument raised by learned counsel for the respondents, that since the sale deed was executed much ommencement of the Act of 2007, therefore, the application petitioner was not maintainable, assumes ordinate Deputy , and the AMIT KUMAR 2025.08.21 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-5889 8. 5889-2017 (O&M) -4- 5. A bare perusal of the 2007 Act would show that the same received the assent of the President of India on 29.12.2007 and was published in Gazette on 31.12.2007 and the same only has a prospective effect. 6. Section 23 of the 2007 Act stipulates the circumstances under which the transfer of property by a senior citizen in favour of another can be treated as void. As per Section 23(1) of the 2007 Act, where a senior citizen after the commencement of 2007 Act has transferred the property by way of gift dee subject to the conditions that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor-senior citizen and upon refusal of the transferee to provide the same, the transfer of the property has to be treated hav fraud or coercion. The relevant Section 23(1) of the 2007 Act is 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 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 transf 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. 7. In the present case, it is a conceded position that the transfer of property was i.e. much prior to the promulgation of 2007 Act. That being so, the said transfer of land in present case cannot be made subject matter of the litigation under 2007 Act. Indisputably, in the instant case, the property in question 5. A bare perusal of the 2007 Act would show that the same received the assent of the President of India on 29.12.2007 and was published in Gazette on 31.12.2007 and the same only has a prospective effect. 6. Section 23 of the 2007 Act stipulates the cumstances under which the transfer of property by a senior citizen in favour of another can be treated as void. As per Section 23(1) of the 2007 Act, where a senior citizen after the commencement of 2007 Act has transferred the property by way of gift deed or otherwise, subject to the conditions that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the senior citizen and upon refusal of the transferee to provide the same, the transfer of the property has to be treated having been done by way of fraud or coercion. The relevant Section 23(1) of the 2007 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. 7. In the present case, it is a conceded position that the transfer of property was done in January 2007 i.e. much prior to the promulgation of 2007 Act. That being so, the said transfer of land in present case cannot be made subject matter of the litigation under 2007 Act. , in the instant case, the property in question 5. A bare perusal of the 2007 Act would show that the same received the assent of the President of India on 29.12.2007 and was published in Gazette on 31.12.2007 6. Section 23 of the 2007 Act stipulates the cumstances under which the transfer of property by a senior citizen in favour of another can be treated as void. As per Section 23(1) of the 2007 Act, where a senior citizen after the commencement of 2007 Act has d or otherwise, subject to the conditions that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the senior citizen and upon refusal of the transferee to provide the same, the transfer of the ing been done by way of fraud or coercion. The relevant Section 23(1) of the 2007 23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances. (1)Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, 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 er 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 7. In the present case, it is a conceded position done in January 2007 i.e. much prior to the promulgation of 2007 Act. That being so, the said transfer of land in present case cannot be made subject matter of the litigation under 2007 Act. , in the instant case, the property in question AMIT KUMAR 2025.08.21 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-5889 was transferred in the name of respondent No.3 on 03.10.2005, which was much prior to the enforcement of the Act of 2007. the matter, the application was, indeed, not maintainable pointedly asked, learned counsel for the petitioner could not cite any decision to the contrary, stage, he impugned order, before the competent 9. that respondent by the applicant, and as such impugned order by this Court. dismissed 10. appeal of the petitioner matter, without getting prejudice from the order, passed by this 18.08.202 Ak Sharma 5889-2017 (O&M) -5- was transferred in the name of respondent No.3 on 03.10.2005, which was much prior to the enforcement of the Act of 2007. the matter, the application was, indeed, not maintainable pointedly asked, learned counsel for the petitioner could not cite any decision to the contrary, to substantiate his argument he submits that the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the impugned order, before the competent authority. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondent No.2 has rightly disposed of by the applicant, and as such, no interference is required with the impugned order by this Court. Ther dismissed. Needless to assert that the C appeal of the petitioner, independently, on the basis of the merits of the matter, without getting prejudice from the order, passed by this .2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable was transferred in the name of respondent No.3 on 03.10.2005, which was much prior to the enforcement of the Act of 2007. In this view of the matter, the application was, indeed, not maintainable. Upon being pointedly asked, learned counsel for the petitioner could not cite any to substantiate his arguments. However, at this petitioner has preferred an appeal against the authority. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion disposed of the application, as preferred no interference is required with the refore, the instant petition is Court concerned, shall decide the , independently, on the basis of the merits of the matter, without getting prejudice from the order, passed by this Court. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No was transferred in the name of respondent No.3 on 03.10.2005, which In this view of . Upon being pointedly asked, learned counsel for the petitioner could not cite any t this petitioner has preferred an appeal against the In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion preferred no interference is required with the instant petition is concerned, shall decide the , independently, on the basis of the merits of the AMIT KUMAR 2025.08.21 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document