Telangana High Court orders swift hearing for senior citizen seeking to reclaim gifted property

The elderly man from Telangana's Sangareddy district had registered two gift settlement deeds in the names of his son and grandson.

The court found that the district collector’s decision was a clear violation of the principles of natural justice as well. (Source: File)

Setting aside two tribunal endorsements, the Telangana High Court has granted relief to a 71-year-old man who wanted to reclaim properties he had gifted to his son and grandson. The court on August 22 directed the Sangareddy district collector to hear his case within 30 days and give him a fair chance to present his arguments.

The elderly man had registered two gift settlement deeds in the names of his son (in 2015) and grandson (in 2021) and sought to reclaim the properties. He applied to the revenue divisional officer (RDO) requesting the cancellation of both gift settlement deeds under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007. On January 15, 2025, the RDO—who is the third respondent in the high court case—granted partial relief by cancelling the 2021 deed but failed to provide any reasons for its refusal to cancel the 2015 deed.

The elderly man then approached the Sangareddy district collector, the designated appellate authority. Instead of proceeding with a hearing on the merits of the appeal, the district collector—the second respondent in the case— issued an endorsement on May 17, 2025, instructing him to return to the RDO to seek a “rectification” of its initial order.

Story continues below this ad

The petitioner thus approached the RDO, who, however, rejected the request on July 31, 2025, stating it was not maintainable. This created a jurisdictional stalemate, leaving the senior citizen without a proper forum to present his case.

Justice K Lakshman stated in his judgment, “In fact, there is no provision under the Act, 2007, to rectify the order passed by the 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent has to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner in terms of Section 16(1) of the Act, 2007, in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Act. Instead of doing so, he has relegated the petitioner to the 3rd respondent seeking rectification.”

The court found that the district collector’s decision was a clear violation of the principles of natural justice as well. It gave the strict directive to dispose of the appeal in 30 days taking into account the man’s advanced age.

Rahul V Pisharody

Rahul V Pisharody is an Assistant Editor with the Indian Express Online and has been reporting from Telangana on various issues since 2019. Besides a focused approach to big news developments, Rahul has a keen interest in stories about Hyderabad and its inhabitants and looks out for interesting features on the city's heritage, environment, history culture etc. His articles are straightforward and simple reads in sync with the context. Rahul started his career as a journalist in 2011 with The New Indian Express and worked in different roles at the Hyderabad bureau for over 8 years. As Deputy Metro Editor, he was in charge of the Hyderabad bureau of the newspaper and coordinated with the team of district correspondents, centres and internet desk for over three years. A native of Palakkad in Kerala, Rahul has a Master's degree in Communication (Print and New Media) from the University of Hyderabad and a Bachelor's degree in Business Management from PSG College of Arts and Science, Coimbatore. Long motorcycle rides and travel photography are among his other interests. ... Read More

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Tags:
Telangana High Court