M.Neelaveni v. The District Collector

Order This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated

07.02.2026, wherein the 1st respondent has confirmed the order of the 2nd respondent, who vide order dated 26.09.2025, directed the 3rd respondent and his wife to deposit Rs.500/- as maintenance to the petitioner, and quash the same and further direct the 1st respondent to give protection to the petitioner from the 3rd respondent.

¶2The case of the petitioner is that her husband passed away on

10.03.1992, leaving behind the petitioner and their three children namely one son and three daughters. The petitioner being a single mother brought up the children by working as coolie in the agricultural lands. Out of her savings, she purchased a vacant land at Achirapakkam Village, Maduranthagam Taluk, Chengalpattu District, measuring an extent of 19 cents. Thereafter, she constructed a residential house and has been residing therein. On 05.04.2010, she had sold 9 cents of land to one Kasthuri and on the very same day, also executed a Settlement Deed settling the residential portion measuring an extent of 10 cents in favour of her son viz., the 3rd respondent. alleging, the 3rd respondent failed to maintain and take care of her, on 06.03.2024, she had given Page3 of 6 petition under Senior Citizen Act, seeking cancellation of the settlement Deed. After conducting enquiry, on 26.09.2025, the 2nd respondent has passed an order, directing the 3rd respondent and his wife to deposit a sum of Rs.500/- every month into the petitioner's account and also directed them not to interfere with the petitioner's receipt of rental income of Rs.5,000/- per month. Against the said order, the petitioner has preferred appeal before the 1st respondent. However, the 1st respondent also confirmed the order of the 2nd respondent. Challenging the concurrent finding, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner out of her own earning, has purchased the subject land and have constructed the residential house. Out of love and affection, the petitioner also settled the property in favour of the 3rd respondent. However, being the only son, the 3rd respondent has not performed his duty to take care of his mother and hence, the order passed by the respondents 2 and 3 need interference of this Court and prays for enhancement of compensation.

¶4Learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the issue arises in this writ petition is no longer res integra and the same was decided by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sasikala v.Revenue Divisional officer and another reported in 2022 SCC Online Madras 4343, wherein, the Full Bench of this held that in the absence of Page4 of 6 any

specific

condition

in

the settlement deed,

if the settlement deed is irrevocable

without

any

condition, the settlement deed cannot be cancelled by the authority under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act and in view of the above decision, the order passed by the 2nd respondent which was confirmed by the 1st respondent, need not be interfered with.

¶5Admittedly, the petitioner executed a settlement deed in favour of the 3rd respondent, believing that the 3rd respondent would take care of her for the remainder of her life. However, the said settlement deed is an irrevocable instrument and the same cannot be cancelled under Section 23 of the Act. This issue has been covered by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, in  Sasikala Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and another reported in 2022 SCC online Mad 4343, wherein the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court had held that when a settlement deed is executed, the same cannot be cancelled unilaterally revoked or cancelled. In the present case, in the absence of any specific condition in the settlement deed, the same cannot be cancelled by the 1st and 2nd respondents. However, the authorities have directed payment of maintenance to the petitioner and permitted her to reside in the subject property and further entitled the petitioner to receive the rental income from the Shop. The order passed by the 2nd respondent, is well reasoned order and does not warrant interference by this Court. Page5 of 6

¶6For the foregoing reasons above, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. 02-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order SK To

¶1The District Collector O/o Chengalpattu District Collectorate, Chengalpattu District.

¶2The Revenue Divisional Office Maduranthagam, Chengalpattu District-603 306. Page6 of 6 M.DHANDAPANI J. sk 02-06-2026

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI M.Neelaveni W/o Late Manickam, Veeranam Salai, Achirapakkam Panchayat and Post, Maduranthagam Taluk, Chengalpet District-603301. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The District Collector O/o Chengalpattu District Collectorate, Chengalpattu District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Office Maduranthagam, Chengalpattu District-603 306. 3. M.Manikandan S/o Late Manickam, Veeranam Salai, Achirapakkam Panchayat and Post, Maduranthagam Taluk, Chengalpet District-603301 ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 07.02.2026 in Na.Ka.No.16234/2025M1 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same and further direct the 1st respondent to give protection to the petitioner from the 3rd respondent. Page2 of 6 For Petitioner(s): Mr.J.Rajmohan For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Prabakaran, Government Counsel