IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATA KA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.24633/2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Sri. Arasegowda, S/o. Late Basavana Malegowda, Aged about 84 years, R/at. No.77/1, 3rd Cross, 4th Main, Jayanagar, Mysore -570014. ...Petitioner (By Sri. Nagaraja S., Advocate) AND:
1. The Deputy Commissioner, Mysore Sub Division, Mysore Taluk & District -570014.
2. Sri. A. Ramachandra, S/o. Arasegowda, Aged about 52 years.
3. Sri. R. Dilip Kumar, S/o. A.Ramachandra, Aged about 27 years.
4. Sri. R. Chandangowda, S/o. A. Ramachandra, Aged about 20 years.
The respondents NO.2 to 4 are R/at. No.88, Siddeshwara Nilaya, Near Naidu Store, Surya Layout, 2nd Stage, Srirampura, Mysuru -570014. … Respondents (By Sri. Vijay Kumar A Patil, AGA) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India praying to direct respondent No.1 to consider and pass an order on merits in Revision Misc.No.19/2018 Annexure-D and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner who is a senior citizen is before this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent-Appellate Authority to dispose off the Revision Misc.No.19/2018 as per Annexure –D.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner of the property bearing Site No. 77/1, situated at Jayanagar, Chamaraja Mohalla, Mysore City purchased through the registered sale deed dated 23.10.1975. Respondent No.1 in order to get BPL Card to his sons fraudulently got executed a Gift Deed dated 01.03.2018 in favour of his children Dilip Kumar and Chandangowda. Thereafter, respondent No.2 tried to evict the petitioner.
Therefore he filed an application before respondent No.2 on 21.05.2018 seeking cancellation of registered Gift Deed.
3. Respondent No.1 considering all the materials on record on 08.08.2018 rejected the prayer of the petitioner in respect of cancellation of registered Gift Deed and passed an order for monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, he filed a revision before the Appellate Authority. Since the Appellate Authority has not disposed off the appeal therefore the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
4. I have heard the learned Government Advocate for respondent No.1. None appears for the petitioner.
5. Sri. Vijayakumar A. Patil, learned Government Advocate rightly and fairly submitted that the Appellate Authority may be directed to dispose off the Revision Petition. The said submission is placed on record.
6. The facts narrated are not in dispute. Though the petitioner is a senior citizen has filed an appeal in the form of revision before the Deputy Commissioner who is the Appellate Authority ought to have disposed off within time stipulated under the provisions of Section 16(6) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
7. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is aged about 84 years, it is the duty of the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal expeditiously. Though the petition is filed in the form of revision, the Deputy Commissioner has the power under Section 16(i) of the Act and to decide the appeal within a period of one month. Hence the Deputy Commissioner is directed to dispose off the appeal petition within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE BVK