- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1301 WP No. 406 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 406 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI BORALINGEGOWDA S/O. LATE SRI. NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. SRI. CHUNCHEGOWDA S/O. LATE SRI. NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/O. LALANAKERE VILLAGE, BINDIGANAVILE HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 571 802. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHAIRMAN MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF THE SENIOR CITIZEN, PROTECTION TRIBUNAL, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1301 WP No. 406 of 2026 AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, PANDAVAPURA SUBDIVISION, PANDAVAPURA, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434 2. TAHSILDAR, NAGAMANGALA TALK, MANDYA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 571 432 3. SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O. LATE SRI. NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O. LALANAKERE VILLAGE, BINDIGANAVILE HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 571 802. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDDHARTH BABURAO, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-G DATED 11/12/2025 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN CASE NO.HI.NA.PO.CR.14/2025- 26. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1301 WP No. 406 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioners are the children of Mr. Ningegowda and Mrs. Parvathamma [the third respondent]. The petitioners are aggrieved by the first respondent's order dated 11.12.2025 in the proceedings in No.14/2025-26 under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 [for short, 'the Act of 2007']. The first respondent, in favouring the third respondent's application under Section 5 of the Act of 2007, has [a] directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to the third respondent, and [b] directed the transfer of mutation entries for certain agricultural lands in favour of the third respondent. 2. Mr. R. B. Sadasivappa, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that this Court must interfere because the first respondent, without even conducting any proceedings, has favoured the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1301 WP No. 406 of 2026 third respondent's application and that there is complete violation of due process. On merits, the learned counsel submits that the family comprising of the petitioners, the third respondent and the deceased Ningegowda owned multiple agricultural lands in Lalanakere Village, Bindinavile Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk; that during the year 1993, the deceased Ningegowda and the petitioners, with the consent of the third respondent, have partitioned all these properties; that if the petitioners have got certain lands that are now mentioned by the third respondent, the deceased Ningegowda has got four properties. The learned counsel emphasises that upon the demise of the deceased Ningegowda in the year 2019, the third respondent has continued in possession and enjoyment of these lands. 3. Mr. Siddharth Baburao, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the first and second respondents, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1301 WP No. 406 of 2026 is heard in the light of these circumstances and upon perusal of Annexure - H, the ordersheet maintained by the first respondent in the proceedings. The question for consideration is whether this Court must intervene at this stage, to grant interim order and await service of notice to the third respondent for disposal of the petition on merits or dispose of the petition on equitable terms to enable a decision with reasonable opportunity to all. 4. It is seen from Annexure - H that the first hearing of the third respondent's application is on 21.08.2025 when notice is issued to "the respondents" and with certain adjournments in between, the first respondent, on 24.10.2025, has recorded the presence of the first petitioner and then the first respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned order. The ordersheet does not show that the petitioners were extended an opportunity to present their cause either by themselves or through - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1301 WP No. 406 of 2026 their learned counsels. The lack of opportunity is obvious and the application must be decided on merits with due opportunity to the petitioners. 5. If there is to be a limited interference at this stage keeping the petition pending, there could be delay, and therefore, this Court is of the view that interest of justice would be better served if the proceedings are restored to the file of the first respondent for reconsideration but calling upon the petitioners, without prejudice to their defence and subject to orders otherwise by the first respondent to pay to the third respondent Rs.5,000/- per month. Each of the petitioners must pay this amount to the third respondent during the pendency of the proceedings with the first respondent subject to terms as aforesaid. In the light of the afore, the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1301 WP No. 406 of 2026 ORDER The petition is allowed in part and the first respondent's impugned order dated 11.12.2025 in No.14/2025-26 is quashed restoring the proceedings to the first respondent's board for reconsideration on the following terms: a] The petitioners shall appear in the proceedings in No.14/2025- 26 with the first respondent without further notice on 09.02.2026. b] The first respondent, with the assistance of its office shall ensure notice of the restored proceedings is caused to the third respondent. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1301 WP No. 406 of 2026 c] Each of the petitioners shall pay to the third respondent during the pendency of the restored proceedings Rs.5,000/- per month and without prejudice to their defence. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB