Ruling that the administrative proceedings leading to the cancellation of a gift deed were “legally untenable” and conducted “without jurisdiction”, the Telangana High Court last week set aside a previous order that had cancelled a gift deed executed by a senior citizen in favour of his grandson.

The division bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin, in the judgment dated February 27, restored the property to the grandson but clarified that no opinion was expressed on the substantive rights of the grandfather to seek cancellation of the gift deed or the grandson’s claim over the property and left those issues “open to be agitated before the competent civil court in accordance with law.”

The case stems from an April 2018 gift deed, involving a residential property in Kothapet village on the outskirts of Hyderabad, executed by the grandfather to the appellant (the grandson), who then demolished the old structure and constructed a new building valued at approximately Rs 4 crore. However, the grandfather later sought to cancel the deed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, alleging he was not provided proper care. The grandfather’s applications before the revenue divisional officer of Keesara division (Primary Authority) in July 2022 and the district collector of Medchal Malkajgiri district (Appellate Authority) in July 2023 were dismissed, noting that the dispute was civil in nature and the gift deed lacked an express condition regarding maintenance.

Subsequently, the grandfather filed a second appeal or review petition in March 2025 before the Commissioner/Director of the Department for Maintenance and Welfare of Parents, Senior Citizens, and Transgender Persons, which then remanded the matter back to the District Collector for fresh consideration. While this was challenged by the appellant, the Appellate Tribunal and Additional District Collector of Medchal Malkajgiri District in April 2025 allowed the appeal and ordered cancellation of the gift deed, holding that the matter fell within the scope of Section 23 of the 2007 Act. A single-judge bench of the high court initially upheld the cancellation by dismissing the grandson’s writ petition.

‘Rests on legally untenable foundation’

The division bench found that the single judge had erred by failing to address the fundamental issue of jurisdiction. It noted that the 2007 Act provides for only a two-tier mechanism: adjudication by a Tribunal and a single appeal to the Appellate Tribunal (District Collector) and stated that “the entire chain of proceedings initiated after the order of the District Collector dated July 2023 rests on a legally untenable foundation.”

“The 2007 Act does not, either expressly or by necessary implication, provide for a further appeal or revisional jurisdiction to the Commissioner/Director (respondent No. 2) against the appellate order of the District Collector (respondent No. 1),” the bench noted. It further observed that the second respondent assumed a jurisdiction, which the parent statute or the Rules framed thereunder do not confer, by entertaining a further proceeding styled as a ‘second appeal’ or a ‘review petition’ or ‘re-appeal’ and passing the remand order in March 2025. The high court further observed that “when an authority acts without inherent jurisdiction, its order is a nullity in the eye of law.”

“Consequently, the remand order dated 18.03.2025, being without any statutory sanction, cannot be sustained,” the bench noted, while adding that all consequential proceedings derive their validity from the said remand and are, therefore, equally vitiated. The bench concluded that the initiation of proceedings before the second respondent as a “second appeal” against the July 2023 order of the District Collector was “wholly without statutory authority and jurisdiction.”