Telangana High Court
Smt.Danda Jhansi vs The State Of Telangana on 21 August, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.21597 OF 2023
ORDER:
Heard Smt Uma Devi Nama, learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.5 to 7. Heard Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to
4.
2. The petitioner herein is the mother of respondent Nos.5 and 7. Respondent No.6 is her daughter-in-law. The petitioner is claiming that she is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac 2.24 gts situated in survey No.318/A, at Rameswaram Village, Nelakondapalli Mandal, Khammam District. She is also the owner of the land in other survey numbers of the very same Village. In proof of the same, she has filed copies of old pattadar pass book, title deed. According to the petitioner, respondent Nos.5 and 6 obtained mutation proceedings in respect of the aforesaid property without putting the petitioner on notice and affording an opportunity. They are harassing the petitioner and not maintaining her. Therefore, she has submitted an application with respondent No.3 under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
2
3. Vide order dated 30.04.2022 in Case No.A2/SCA/784/2021, respondent No.3 has awarded an amount of Rs.2,500/- per month, as maintenance to the petitioner, payable by respondent Nos.5 and 6 and directed them to deposit the said amount, till the last breath of the petitioner, in her savings bank account. In addition to it, respondent No.5 is directed to give the amount to the petitioner which would be sanctioned under Rythubandu Scheme.
4. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 failed to consider the prayer of the petitioner to restore the possession of the said property. It is her specific case that respondent Nos.5 and 6 obtained the mutation proceedings in respect of the said property, without putting the petitioner on notice and affording her an opportunity. They are harassing her. The said aspects were not considered by respondent No.3 while passing the impugned order.
5. As discussed supra, to show that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the said property, she has filed the copy of old pattadar pass book and title deed.
6. In the light of the same, the impugned order dated 30.04.2022 in Case No.A2/SCA/784/2021 passed by respondent No.3 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to respondent No.3 with a direction to pass orders afresh by putting the petitioner and respondent No.5 to 7 on notice and affording them an opportunity of 3 hearing. He shall follow the procedure laid down under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior citizens Act, 2007 and the Telangana Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011. He shall consider the pattadar pass book and title deed issued in her favour. He shall pass orders afresh, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of (60) days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Date: 21.08.2024 ESP