Also Read - Madras High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to DMK MLA Senthil Balaji and Brother in Horse‑Trading Case

The Court examined the counter affidavit filed by the State, which contended that no allotment had ever been issued in favour of the petitioner's husband. The Bench noted that this assertion was directly contrary to the order of dispossession passed on 18 October 2014 by an officer of the same rank. In order to resolve the discrepancy, the Court directed the Assistant Director to place on affidavit the complete allotment list of allottees in the colony, failing which he was required to appear in person.

The State failed to produce the allotment list. Consequently, the Court drew an adverse inference against the State's position and treated the fact stated in the 18 October 2014 order—that the quarter had been allotted to Mati Ullah—as correct. The Court emphasized that this finding had remained unchallenged throughout multiple rounds of litigation before the Bench.

Also Read - Delhi High Court to Determine Visitation Rights for Mahua Moitra Over Pet Rottweiler Henry

Further, the Court referred to the Committee constituted in 1996 for identifying the occupants of the Bunkar Colony. The Committee's list placed the petitioner's husband at serial number three, thereby acknowledging him as a legitimate occupant. The State had never questioned the petitioner's status as the wife of a valid allottee in the earlier proceedings.

Having established that the allotment could not be disputed, the Bench held that there was no justification for the authorities to withhold possession of any part of the quarter, especially after the unauthorized occupants had been evicted. The Court described such retention of possession as wholly illegal, arbitrary and lacking any authority of law.

Also Read - Karnataka High Court Refuses to Quash FIR in Land Grabbing Case Against Former Minister

The Bench held that the respondents could not be permitted to act in contradiction to their own records and orders. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. The Court directed the Assistant Director to restore possession of the locked portion of the quarter to the petitioner forthwith. Additionally, the Court ordered that a transfer deed be executed in favour of the petitioner as the successor of her late husband, Mati Ullah.

The judgment underscores the principle that hereditary occupations such as weaving entail a continuity of rights that survive the death of the original allottee, and that state authorities must honour their own allotment decisions unless lawfully varied.

Also Read - Kerala High Court Grants Final One‑Month Window to Investigating Officer in SNDP Microfinance Fraud Probe