* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.6803 OF 2026 % 11.03.2026 # Aalapathi Satish Kumar, S/o Aalapati Rama Krishna, age 36 years, D.No.4-360/1, R/o Patavala Village, Tallarevu Mandal, Kakinada District. ……Petitioner And: $ The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District-522238 and others ….Respondent. !Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.Hari Krishna Tata ^Counsel for the respondent : GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE <Gist: >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1011 2 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI * * * * WRIT PETITION No.6803 OF 2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 11.03.2026 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No 3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.6803 OF 2026 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- < to issue a Writ, Order particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to A) Set-aside the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Ref.no.H/872/2025, dated 16.2.2026 and consequently declare that the 2nd respondent has no power or authority to cancel the Registered Gift Deed dated 24.8.2023 vide document No.5572 of 2023 B) Consequently declare all the proceedings in Ref.No.H/872/2025 are void and illegal and to pass such other order or orders as deem fit in the circumstance of the case….= 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner herein is that the respondent No.2 passed an impugned order dated 16.02.2026 under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to 8the Act 56 of 2007) cancelling the gift deed document No.5572 of 2023 executed by the respondent No.3, in favour of the petitioner, out of love and affection subject to maintenance and welfare of the executants. He further submits that the impugned order dated 16.02.2026 is passed by the 4 respondent No.2 under Section 23(1) of the Act 56 of 2007 without there being any jurisdiction. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon9ble Apex Court in Sudesh Chhikara V. Ramti Devi1 (Civil Appeal No.174 of 2021, dated 06.12.2022), wherein, it is held as follows: <Careful perusal of the petition under Section 23 filed by respondent no.1 shows that it is not even pleaded that the release deed was executed subject to a condition that the transferees (the daughters of respondent no.1) would provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to respondent no.1. Even in the impugned order dated 22nd May, 2018 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, no such finding has been recorded. It seems that oral evidence was not adduced by the parties. As can be seen from the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, immediately after a reply was filed by the appellant that the petition was fixed for arguments. Effecting transfer subject to a condition of providing the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor – senior citizen is sine qua non for applicability of sub-section (1) of Section 23. In the present case, as stated earlier, it is not even pleaded by respondent No.1 that the release deed was executed subject to such a condition. There is an application for intervention on behalf of a developer. The intervenor claims that he is a bona fide buyer of a part of the land subject matter of the release deed from the appellant and that he has carried out substantial work of 1. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1011 5 development. It is not necessary for us to deal with the rights claimed by the intervenor. All questions regarding the rights claimed by the intervenor are left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings.= 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Hon9ble Apex Court carved out two ingredients for exercising power by the respondent No.2 under Section 23(1) of the Act 56 of 2007 i.e., 1) there must be a complaint on the part of the complainant that the well being, welfare of the executant was not properly addressed by the beneficiary, 2) the subject document should contain the condition of providing basic amenities or basic physical needs to the transferor. But in the instant case, according to the petitioner, there is no allegation of refusal of maintenance or welfare of the respondent No.3 and the documents does not contain any condition of welfare and well being and for providing basic amenities to the transferor. In the absence of these two conditions as laid down by the Hon9ble Apex Court, the exercise of jurisdiction under the provisions of the Act 56 of 2007 by the respondent No.2 is contrary to the Section 23(1) of the Act 56 of 2007. 6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submits that in the case on hand, the respondent No.3 made a complaint alleging that the petitioner herein obtained alleged gift deed by way of fraud, but not by way of consent. Therefore, the respondent No.2 is under the obligation not only to look after the welfare and maintenance by the relatives, beneficiaries of the documents but also for the protection of the life and property of senior citizens 6 as paramount consideration as envisaged under the scheme of the Act. As such, the same is within the jurisdiction. He further submits that as per the complaint of the respondent No.3, the property already got alienated in favour of the petitioner is only by way of fraud. Therefore the said fraudulent transaction had committed against a senior citizen, who should be protected under the scheme of the Act. He further submits that as per Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 2011), the protection of the life and property of senior citizens is also vested with the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 2nd respondent passed orders without jurisdiction cannot be countenanced and judgment referred by the Hon9ble Apex Court is only under Section 23(1) of the Act 56 of 2007. The grievance/ complaint of the respondent No.3 respondent clearly and categorically comes under the purview of the Chapter V of the Act 56 of 2007 and Rule 20 of the Rules, 2011 made under the Act. 7. Learned Government Pleader for the respondents furnished written instructions, wherein, it is stated that while considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since the petitioner had already mortgaged the subject property in favour of IDFC Bank on 07.07.2025, passing an order of cancellation under Section 23(1) of Act 56 of 2007 may lead to further consequences and may be detrimental to the interests of the bank in whose 7 favour the property had already been mortgaged. Therefore, the order of cancellation of the deed dated 16.02.2026 has already been withdrawn. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the material placed on record. It is appropriate for more understanding to extract the relevant provisions and Rules made under the Act, as under: CHAPTER V: PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PROPERTY OF SENIOR CITIZEN 21. Measures for publicity, awareness, etc. for welfare of senior citizens The State Government shall, take all measures to ensure that - i. the provisions of this Act are given wide publicity through public media including the television, radio and the print, at regular intervals; ii. the Central Government and State Government Officers, including the police officers and the members of the judicial service, are given periodic sensitization and awareness training on the issues relating to this Act; iii. effective co-ordination between the services provided by the concerned Ministries or Departments dealing with law, home affairs, health and welfare, to address the issues relating to the welfare of the senior citizens and periodical review of the same is conducted. 22. Authorities who may be specified for implementing the provisions of this Act 8 1. The State Government may, confer such powers and impose such duties on a District Magistrate as may be necessary, to ensure that the provisions of this Act are properly carried out and the District Magistrate may specify the officer, subordinate to him, who shall exercise all or any of the powers, and perform all or any of the duties, so conferred or imposed and the local limits within which such powers or duties shall be carried out by the officer as may be prescribed. 2. The State Government shall prescribe a comprehensive action plan for providing protection of life and property of senior citizens. 23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances 1. Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has 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 sub-sections (1) and (2), action may be taken on his behalf by 9 any of the organisation referred to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 5. Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011: 20. Duties and Powers of the District Magistrate.— (1) The District Magistrate shall ensure that the provisions of this Act are properly carried out and the District Magistrate may specify the officer, subordinate to him, who shall exercise all or any of the powers, and perform all or any of the duties, so conferred or imposed and the local limits within which such powers or duties shall be carried out by the officer as may be prescribed. (2) It shall be the duty of the District Magistrate to i) ensure that life and property of senior citizens of the district are protected and they are able to live with security and dignity; ii) oversee and monitor the work of Registration authority Maintenance Tribunals and Maintenance Officers of the district with a view to ensuring timely and fair disposal of applications for maintenance, and execution of Tribunal's orders and implementation of rules herein. iii) oversee and monitor the working of old age homes in the district so as to ensure that they confirm to the standards laid down in these rules, and any other guidelines and orders of the State Government; iv) ensure regular and wide publicity of the provisions of the Act, and Central and State Governments programmes for the Welfare of Senior Citizens; v) encourage and coordinate with Panchayats, Municipalities, Nehru Yuvak Kendras, Educational Institutions 10 and especially their National Service Scheme Units, organizations, specialists, experts, activists and other civil societies organizations working in the district so that their resources and efforts are effectively pooled for the welfare of senior citizens of the district; vi) ensure provision of timely assistance and relief to senior citizens in the event of natural calamities and other emergencies; vii) ensure periodic sensitization of officers of various departments and Local Bodies concerned with welfare of senior citizens, towards the needs of such citizens, and the duty of the officers towards the latter. viii) review the progress of investigations and trial of cases relating to senior citizens in the District, except in cities having a Police Commissioner, where it shall be responsibility of Police Commissioners concerned to do so. ix) ensure that adequate number of prescribed application forms for maintenance are available on-line or in offices of common contact for citizens like Panchayats, Post Offices, Mandal Parishad Offices, Mandal Revenue Offices, Revenue Divisional Offices, Collectorate, Police Stations etc; x) promote establishment of dedicated Help Lines for senior citizens at district headquarters, to begin with; and xi) perform such other functions as the State Government may, by order, assign to the District Magistrate in this behalf, from time to time. (3) With a view to ensuring the provisions of this Act, Rules and Guidelines and instructions as prescribed by the State Government from time to time are properly carried out, the 11 District Magistrate shall be competent to issue such directions, not inconsistent with the Act, these rules, and general guidelines of the State Government, as may be necessary, to any concerned Government or Statutory Agency or body or individuals/ a group of individuals/Voluntary Organizations / Institutions / Charitable Trusts/ Statutory Bodies etc. working in the district, and especially to the following:- (a) Officers of the State Government in the Police, Health and Publicity Departments and the Departments dealing with welfare of senior citizens; (b) Maintenance Tribunals and Conciliation Officers; (c) Panchayats, Municipalities and Municipal Corporations; d) Educational institutions and (e) Other concerned institutions/persons. The fact remains that the 2nd respondent is under obligation to protect the life and property of senior citizens from their kith and kin and beneficiaries of the deeds in respect of their estate executed by them. In the instant case, admittedly, there is a specific complaint by the 3rd respondent, the subject document was obtained by way of fraud. If that is so, for adjudication of such claim, the jurisdiction is vested with the 2nd respondent under chapter V of the Act 56 of 2007 and Rule 20 of the Rules, 2011. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the ratio laid down by the Hon9ble Apex Court in the absence of two ingredients as stated supra, the 2nd respondent cannot exercise his power since it has no jurisdiction, is not valid submission and not acceptable in view of the language and meaning laid down under Rule 20 of the Rules, 2011. Therefore, the impugned order which was passed under 12 Section 23(1) of the Act 56 of 2007 is certainly contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon9ble Apex Court and it is liable to be set-aside. But in the meanwhile, in view of the consequential action and mortgage exercised by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent himself withdrawn and set aside the order dated 16.02.2026. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, since the 2nd respondent has conferred power to Protect the life and property of senior citizens under Rule 20 of the Rules, 2011, 2nd respondent is directed to proceed further as per Rule 20 of the Rules, 2011 and pass appropriate orders, after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. The subject complaint of the 3rd respondent shall be disposed of at the earliest, preferably, within a period of six(06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J Date:11.03.2026 Note: L.R. copy be marked (b/o) BSP 13 25 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.6803 OF 2026 Date:11.03.2026 Note: L.R. copy be marked (B/o) BSP