Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulwant Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 25 February, 2026
DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.02.27 15:07 I attest to the accuracy authenticity of this doc 2026:PHHG 030294 se CWP-8017-2016 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-8017 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.02.2026 Kulwant Singh and others .... Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Kanwal Jit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Muskan Sharma, Advocate, and Mr. Jashan Preet Singh Deol, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Pratibha Bali, AAG, Punjab. Mr. B.S. Khehar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. KULDEEP TIWARI, J (Oral)
1. The legality of the order dated 30.11.2015 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Maintenance Tribunal, Mansa, invoking the mischief of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, 'the Act of 2007'), caused grievance to the petitioner, as the land in question was transferred through the transfer deed dated 24.09.2014, which was cancelled by the learned Maintenance Tribunal concerned.
2. Two facts, which are before this Court, and required to be considered to evaluate the legality of the impugned order, are: (i) during the pendency of the instant petition, the demise of the senior citizens has occurred; and (ii) whether the order impugned before this Court is appealable or not?
3. So far as the second question is concerned, there is no dispute that the order impugned before this Court is an appealable order, and a Division Bench of this Court, in CWP-7282-2010, 2010 (Paramjit Kumar Saroya vs. Union of India and another), decided on 28.05.2014, has held iafat any person aggrieved has a right to appeal under Section 16 (1) of the P & H High Court, Chandigarh DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.02.27 15:07 2026:PHHG 030294 se CWP-8017-2016 2 Act of 2007, before the learned Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Act of 2007. Therefore, the second question is answered in the affirmative, to the effect that the petitioners have a statutory remedy of appeal, which has not been invoked.
4. So far as the first question is concerned, the demise of the senior citizen occurred post the decision passed by the learned Maintenance Tribunal concerned, cancelling the transfer deed. Therefore, if any person claims a right in the property in question, they would have a legal remedy to defend the order passed by the learned Maintenance Tribunal concerned.
5. There is an application (CM-2639-CWP-2019) preferred by Baljinder Singh son of Lal Singh, son of Gajjan Singh, for impleadment claiming to have a right in the property in question. However, such a right cannot be adjudicated by this Court, and the same has to be adjudicated in an appropriate motion before an appropriate Court.
6. Consequently, without observing anything on the merits of the case, the petitioners, at the first instance, are relegated to the learned Appellate Authority concerned. The operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed for the next 30 days only. In the meantime, the petitioners can approach the learned Appellate Authority with an application seeking a stay of the impugned order. The learned Appellate Authority, in the event of the filing of such an application and statutory appeal, shall decide the same after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties and without being influenced by the order passed by this Court.
6. Disposed of, accordingly.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE 25.02.2026 deepak Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document P & H High Court, Chandigarh