Punjab and Haryana High Court slams red tape, allows woman to transfer husband’s share in property

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has deprecated UT authorities’ insensitive handling of a senior citizen’s request for the transfer of her ailing husband’s share in their property, terming it as a display of “red tapism”.

The Division Bench of Justice Arun Palli and Justice Vikram Aggarwal, in their judgment dated September 18, quashed the July 23 communication by the authorities concerned, which had denied the petitioner’s request on technical grounds.

Gurpreet Kaur Maini, the petitioner, had approached the court seeking relief from the repeated directions of the authorities to file unnecessary petitions despite being appointed as the legal guardian of her husband by a competent court. The court noted that the petitioner had been legally authorised to make decisions on behalf of her husband, a former Chief Secretary of Punjab, suffering from a debilitating illness.

Anand Chhibbar, senior advocate, representing the petitioner, argued that the respondents’ actions were “palpably illegal” and highlighted the petitioner’s valid appointment as the legal guardian under the provisions of the relevant Act by the Delhi Court, along with no-objection affidavits from her sons. Chhibbar urged that there was no need for the petitioner to file another petition under Order XXXII of the CPC as demanded by the respondents, asserting that the petitioner was being harassed by the authorities.

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable, claiming that no document of title had been refused and that the petitioner would have to prefer a petition under Order XXXII, CPC.

The court expressed shock at the “total miscarriage of justice”, noting that despite the petitioner’s old age and the challenging circumstances she was facing, the authorities were tossing her from one office to another. The court observed, “It is time that authorities come out of this ‘red tapism’ and deal with issues with sensitivity and compassion, apart from the rules and regulations, which are to be construed for the benefit of the public at large and not to their detriment.”

Referring to the petitioner’s ordeal, which began in December 2023 with her request to transfer 50% of her husband’s share in the subject property, the court highlighted that she had already obtained the necessary guardianship certificate from the Delhi Court. The court found it incomprehensible that while the Estate Officer had no objection to the request, the Sub-Registrar insisted on further legal action.

The court emphasised that all legal and financial decisions included the execution of a sale deed concerning her husband’s share. It concluded that the authorities had “failed miserably and with complete insensitivity” and took upon itself the duty to deliver justice to a “hapless, old, infirm litigant.”

Quoting the Delhi High Court’s decision in ‘NA and Others Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 41’ case, the Bench affirmed that under the exceptional circumstances, the petitioner did not need to file a fresh petition under Order XXXII, CPC, as her legal guardianship had already been established under Section 14 of the 2016 Act.

The court, being fully satisfied, ruled in favour of the petitioner, quashing the communication dated July 23, 2024, and permitting her to transfer 50% of her husband’s share in the subject property as his legal guardian and “signing authority.”