Devan Ramachandran, J.

1. The appellant’s property, with a residential building thereon, was acquired, through purchase, by the 6th respondent – ‘Vizhinjam International Sea Port Ltd.’ (‘Port’, for short); and she, thereupon, laid claim for resettlement, by being allotted 5 cents of land, under Ext.P4 – “Package for the resettlement and rehabilitation of project affected persons.”

2. The appellant alleges that though she was found eligible by the Government after all due inquiry, her entitlement has now been questioned by the 6th respondent on specious grounds; thus constraining her to have approached this Court, through the Writ Petition, seeking that the respondents be directed to allot to her the eligible plot, in lieu of her residential house acquired from her, for the project.

3. Sri.Govind Padmanabhan – learned counsel for the appellant, argued that, even though every pleading on record, including the counter affidavit filed by the State, is in his client’s favour, the learned Single Judge declined her plea solely relying upon a portion of the counter affidavit of respondents 6 to 8; but reserving her the liberty to approach the said respondent with an appropriate representation. He argued that the afore reserved liberty is wholly inappropriate because, it is the counter affidavit of respondents 6 to 8 that has been relied upon; and in which, what has been averred is not the truth.

4. Sri.Govind Padmanabhan then explained that his client and her sister had adjacent properties, which were both acquired; and that both such properties had residential houses, being used by them respectively. He conceded that a portion of his client’s house stood into the property of her sister; and imputed that, it is this, which is now being used by respondents 6 to 8 to deny her the benefit of the alternative land under the Scheme. He pointed out that, even the Government, in their counter affidavit, has expressly conceded that only a small portion of his client’s house was remaining in the property of her sister, with the rest of it being in her own property – which has now been acquired; and that she is, therefore, fully entitled to the benefit under the Scheme. He prayed that - the impugned judgment, hence, be set aside and the respondents be directed to allot the appellant, the plot as found eligible to her.

5. Smt.Merline Mathew – learned Standing Counsel for respondents 6 to 8, in response, submitted that even though there was an initial proposal to allot a certain land to the appellant, it was found to be illegal because, the house she was earlier residing in was, in fact, included in the property belonging to her sister – which has also been acquired. She argued that, when the factual situation be so, the learned Single Judge has acted correctly in having dismissed the Writ Petition.

6. Sri.T.K.Shajahan – learned Senior Government Pleader, however, conceded that, as per the counter affidavit of the Government, only a portion of the appellant’s residential house was included in the land of her sister and that there is no controversy as to the ownership of the same - it having been fully admitted by the latter also before the Authorities. He then pointed out that, there was a meeting of all the stakeholders on 19.04.2016, wherein, it was decided to allow five cents of land to the appellant in terms of the Scheme; and that consequently, plot No.49 was set apart exclusively for her, in the presence of the representatives of the ‘Port’. He supported the appellant and left it to this Court to issue appropriate orders.

7. We have considered the afore rival submissions very intently and have also examined the relevant documents.

8. Going by the judgment impugned, as rightly argued by Sri.Govind Padnabhan, the learned Single Judge has taken the averments in the counter affidavit of respondents 6 to 8, to be absolutely true, to have thus dismissed the Writ Petition; but reserving liberty to them to move the said respondents again, with a representation.

9. The case of the appellant is built on the vehement assertion that her property, along with a residential house therein, had been acquired through a purchase from her; and that, therefore, she is entitled to the benefit of the Scheme, which was initially as seen in Ext.P3 and subsequently modified as per Ext.P4; wherein, she asserts she is entitled to five cents of land for her resettlement.

10. The counter affidavit of the State of Kerala is unmistakable in its tenor, when it admits - without any equivocation, that the appellant was the owner of the property in which there was a house and that both were in her physical possession, though a portion of it had intruded into the property of her sister, which was lying adjacent. As we already noticed above, the counter affidavit further avers that, in the meeting held on 09.04.2016, a decision was taken to allot the five cents of land to the appellant and that this led to Plot No.49 being set apart to her exclusively. What is pertinent in the further averment that, all this was done was in the presence of the representatives of the ‘Port’.

11. However, the ‘Port’ appears to have taken a turn around because, their averments in the counter affidavit filed by them say that the entire building of the appellant was, in fact, in the property of her sister. However, in paragraph 6 thereof, they admit that only a part of the building, bearing No.VP-XIII/950 of the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram, was remaining in the land of the appellant’s sister. This is fortified by the further averments in paragraph eight of the counter affidavit, namely, that the land on which the residential building was situated was assessed in the name of the appellant and the purchase price has also been paid to her.

12. It is thus discernible that the specific case of the appellant is that her residential house was in her own property, with a small portion of it, being in the land of her sister. However, there is no dispute that she was residing in the said house, as was her sister in a separate house on her own property; and further the latter is seen to have offered affidavits to the official respondents that she makes no claim on the appellant’s building.

13. When the Government of Kerala admits, without any reservation, that the appellant is entitled to be allotted five cents of land for her resettlement, on account of her residential house having been now demolished on account of the acquisition of her property, we see no reason why the ‘Port’ should have taken a different stand, particularly when, as said above, the allotment of the plot in question was made in their presence. Pertinently, the averments in the counter affidavit of the Government does not even whisperingly state that the ‘Port’ had made any demur or protest at the time when the land was found eligible to the appellant, or when it was allotted to her; and we, therefore, cannot understand why it has now taken a different position.

14. That apart, the ostensible reason projected before us by the ‘Port’ is that the entire building remained in the land belonging to the appellant’s sister and brother-in-law. However, going by the admitted averments of respondents 6 to 8 in their counter affidavit, as noticed above, only a portion of the said building was in the land belonging to the appellant’s sister, with the major share of it being in her own property, which was subsequently purchased and acquired.

15. In the afore circumstances, we cannot find favour with the opinion recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, particularly because, once a view had been taken – albeit incorrectly - that the appellant was not entitled to allotment of land on account of the averments of the counter affidavit of respondents 6 to 8, a further reservation of liberty to her to move the same respondents was totally inappropriate and negatory.

16. In any event, as said above, we cannot find the claim of the appellant, in any manner, not worthy; and are, therefore, certain that she is entitled to relief.

                  Resultantly, we allow this Appeal and set aside the impugned judgment; thus directing the respondents to ensure that all necessary steps to allot the plot in question in favour of the appellant are initiated and completed without any avoidable delay, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.