Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 196
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
GNANAMMA – Appellant
Versus
THE SECRETARY, MUNNAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 38341 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.PRAJIT RATNAKARAN, SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH, SHRI.E.MOHAMMED SHAFI
For the Respondents: SRI.ARUN THOMAS SC, MUNNAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SHRI.SHAJI A.K.
Proper procedures for land allotment must be adhered to, and claims of possession require proper legal backing and acknowledgment of all facts.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: This writ petition arises under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding entitlement to land allotment. Facts of the Case: The petitioner claims hereditary rights over Plot No.72, alleging illegal dispossession post her husband's death.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that the husband's allotted plot was actually Plot No.109, dismissing the claim.
Issues: The critical issue is whether the petitioner's dispossession from Plot No.72 is unlawful and whether they were rightfully allotted Plot No.109.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the committee's decision dated 29.03.2005 indicating the correct allotment, establishing legal ownership beyond the petitioner's claim.
Result: The petition is dismissed, granting the petitioner the right to file a new representation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim to plot ownership. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. legal representation and counter-arguments. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's final decision and rights. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) Declare that the petitioner and her son being the legal heirs of late Pichayadas is entitled to hold and enjoy Plot No.72 and dispossession of the petitioner from the said plot and allotting it to the legal heirs of Shankaramal is illegal.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order and thereby direct the respondents to hand over the plot No.72 to the petitioner (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order and thereby direct the respondents consider Ext.P4 representation”.
2. According to the petitioner, she has been a resident of Munnar for over 40 years, applied for a plot under a government scheme for SC/ST beneficiaries. Following the decision of the respondents dated 23.03.2005, her husband, Pichayadas, was allotted Plot No.72, and he constructed a house on the plot with an E.M.S loan. After Pichayadas' death, the petitioner and her son, the legal heirs, continued living there. Unexpectedly, the petitioner was forcibly evicted by the respondents, and possession of the plot was transferred to the legal heirs of Shankarammal, despite her already being allotted a different plot. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation requesting the return of the property, but no action was taken by the respondents. Hence, the writ petition.
3. On 12.11.2024, when the writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, sought time to file an application to implead the legal representatives of late Shankaramal, to whom, according to the petitioner, plot No.72 was illegally allotted.
4. On 27.11.2024, as per the order in IA No.1 of 2024, additional respondents 3 and 4 were impleaded in the writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel for the Munnar Grama Panchayat took notice for respondents 1 and 2, and urgent notice by speed post was issued to respondents 3 and 4, returnable within four weeks.
5. Additional respondents 3 and 4 filed a counter affidavit dated 16.01.2025 opposing the relief sought in the writ petition and producing therewith Exts.R3(a) to R3(k) documents. Similarly, respondents 1 and 2 also filed a counter-affidavit dated 18.03.2025 opposing the reliefs sought in the writ petition. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit dated 18.03.2025 read thus:
6. It is humbly submitted that on 29.03.2005 the Munnar Grama Panchayath Committee through its 4th decision constituted a sub committee to oversee the allotment of plots to landless and homeless beneficiaries from the SC/ST community. Consequently a list of beneficiaries was prepared and on 02.04.2005, the sub committee finalised a list of 189 beneficiaries who are eligible to be allotted land. It is submitted that the petitioner’s husband, Pichayadas was also included in the list.
7. The committee through its 5th decision dated 26.09.2005, decided to allot land as per the above-mentioned list of beneficiaries. As per the decision, the plot allotted to Pichayadas is Plot No.109 and not Plot No.72 as claimed by the petitioner. As per the list, the Plot No.72 was allotted to one Smt.Aavadiyammal and not to the husband of the petitioner.
6. Today, when this writ petition is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition pointing out that as per the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2, the plot allotted to the husband of the petitioner is plot No.109 and not plot No.72 and hence the petitioner is intending to file a fresh representation before the 2nd respondent Munnar Grama Panchayat.
In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is closed, with
