K.Ramarajan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.02.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH K.Ramarajan ... Petitioner -vs1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai Division, Pudukkottai.

2.R.Ramsundar ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent herein to consider the Application of the petitioner, dated 09.08.2023, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and to dispose the same within the time limit to be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.S.Kumaraguru For R1 : Mr.J.K.Jayaselan Government Advocate

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first respondent herein to consider the Application of the petitioner, dated 09.08.2023, preferred under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and dispose the same.

2. With the consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. Since no adverse orders are going to be passed against the second respondent, notice to the second respondent is hereby dispensed with.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, a senior citizen aged about 71 years, owns several properties in and around Karampakudi Taluk, Pudukottai District. The petitioner and his wife lived with their son, the second respondent herein. In the year 2023, the second respondent allegedly threatened the petitioner and coerced him into settling all the properties in his favour. Subsequently, on 27.02.2023, the second respondent obtained a settlement deed in his favour all the petitioner's properties. Therefore, the petitioner filed a complaint with the Karampakudi Police on 15.05.2023. Thereafter, on

09.08.2023, he submitted a petition to the first respondent, requesting to cancel the settlement deed dated 27.02.2023. Since no action has been taken, the petitioner has approached this Court with the present Writ Petition.

5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent submits that, based on the petition received from the petitioner, notices and summons were issued to the petitioner by the first respondent to appear for an enquiry. However, the petitioner has failed to respond to the said notices and summons and therefore, the learned Government Advocate prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

6. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent, and having regard to the fact that the petitioner has not complied with the process initiated by the first respondent, this Court is of the view that the Writ Petition lacks merit and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

NCC : Yes / No 19.02.2025 Index : Yes / No smn2

To:- The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai Division, Pudukkottai.

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH , J.

smn2 19.02.2025