S. Muralee Krishna, J.

1. The petitioner, who is the owner of the property having an extent of 81 square metres and a building therein bearing door No.377/B of Mankulam Grama Panchayat filed this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent, Secretary, Mankulam Grama Panchayat, to tag building number upon the petitioner’s building in the property covered by Ext.P1 tax receipt dated 02.04.2025 issued to him, and to direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation dated 16.05.2025 submitted by the petitioner along with some other persons and act in accordance with law, forthwith.

2. As per the pleadings in the writ petition, in the year 2021, the petitioner purchased the aforesaid property with the building therein, which is a part of a villa project by the name ‘Villa Vista’ consisting of twenty-two buildings of the same nature, and he started a hotel business therein during the year 2024. Evidencing the possession of the property and the building, the petitioner produced Ext.P1 tax receipt dated 02.04.2025 and evidencing the business conducted therein by him, the petitioner produced Ext.P2 certificate of IFTE and OS license issued by the 1st respondent, Mankulam Grama Panchayat. The petitioner pleads that though building numbers are assigned to the petitioner and the other building owners in the villa project, none of them was tagged with the number by the 1st respondent. Now the police is interfering in the business of the petitioner, directing him to produce the documents related to his property before the police for their verification. On 19.04.2025 and 13.05.2025, police came to the property of the petitioner, causing hindrance to his business activities. As per the direction, the petitioner appeared before the circle inspector of police, Mankulam, and at that time it was disclosed that the 3rd respondent, District Collector, issued a specific order not to alienate or transfer the property of the petitioner and others since the Enforcement Directorate has initiated proceedings against some of the properties. It was further informed that the police is unable to identify the property since the building numbers of the properties were not tagged on them.

                  2.1 The petitioner states that upon enquiry, he came to know that the 3rd respondent has issued a communication to the concerned authorities pointing out that the buildings bearing numbers MGP 7/377h, 377J, 377R and 377s are attached by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. It was also specified that the 1st respondent failed to convince the Enforcement Directorate Officials the building numbers situated in those properties since the same are not tagged therein. Therefore, by Ext.P3 communication dated 13.04.2025, the 3rd respondent directed the police and the registration authorities to prevent all activities of alienating or transferring any of the properties in the ‘Villa Vista’, unless it is determined which property is attached by the Enforcement Directorate.

                  2.2 The petitioner further states that he, along with three other building owners, approached the 2nd respondent and submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 16.05.2025 seeking action to tag the building numbers in their respective buildings. But the 2nd respondent has not tagged the number in the respective building, making it difficult to identify the building number. Moreover, the 2nd respondent is of the stand that the practice of tagging building numbers in front of the building has not been carried out for quite some time, and hence they are unable to do the same. The petitioner is facing difficulties in conducting his business due to these anomalies, and therefore, he approached this Court with the writ petition.

3. The writ petition, though initially was considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court as per roster, by the administrative order dated 12.07.2025 of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the case is posted before this Bench, being the special Bench constituted for dealing with the matters relating to the Munnar region.

4. On 17.07.2025, when the writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to place on record the title deed of the property in question. On the said date, we directed the petitioner to file an application to implead the State of Kerala, represented by its Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, as an additional respondent. The learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the Mankulam Grama Panchayat sought time to get instructions.

5. On 11.08.2025, as per the order in I.A.No.1 of 2025 filed by the petitioner, the State of Kerala, represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, was impleaded as the additional 4th respondent. As per the order in I.A.No.2 of 2025, Ext.P5 sale deed bearing No.577/2021 dated 08.03.2021, Sub Registrar Officer, Devikulam, was accepted as an additional document from the side of the petitioner.

6. On 26.08.2025, when the writ petition came up for consideration, we noted paragraphs 2 to 5 of Ext.P3 communication dated 13.04.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent District Collector, which is one addressed to the District Police chief and other officials, which read thus:

                

                 

                 

7. After arguing for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to file an application to implead the concerned officer of the Enforcement Directorate as an additional respondent.

8. On 16.09.2025, as per the order in I.A.No.3 of 2025 filed by the petitioner, the Directorate of Enforcement, represented by the Additional Director, was impleaded as the additional 5th respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for the additional 5th respondent took notice for the said respondent and sought time to get instructions. Similarly, the learned Standing Counsel for the Mankulam Grama Panchayat for the 2nd respondent also sought time to file counter affidavit.

9. The additional 5th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 10.12.2025, producing therewith Ext.R5(a) to Ext.R5(c) documents. Paragraphs 5 to 8 of that counter affidavit read thus:

                  “5. It is submitted that the Directorate of Enforcement is an investigating agency functioning under the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, and is empowered to investigate into the matters of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as PMLA, 2002) and Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as FEMA, 1999). The Directorate of Enforcement is the only competent authority to investigate into the matters under the PMLA and FEMA. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) is an statute enacted by the Government of India mainly with the objective of prevention of laundering of proceeds generated out of scheduled offences by confiscating the proceeds involved and punish the offender of money laundering. The intention of the Act is not to let the properties involved in Money-Laundering be available for enjoyment of either the offenders themselves or for the members of their family or any person but to confiscate the properties involved in money-laundering to the Government of India.

                  6. It is submitted that the Directorate of Enforcement, by Provisional Attachment Order dated 07.01.2023, and also by virtue of Corrigendum dated 16.01.2023, provisionally attached the unencumbered immovable properties forming part of the Munnar Villa Vista project under Section 5 of the PMLA, in connection with the ongoing investigation concerning the proscribed organisation Popular Front of India (PFI) and the offences involving its office bearers. The attachment is thus part of a larger action undertaken under the PMLA to prevent concealment, transfer or disposal of proceeds of crime. The said attachment was duly confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority by order dated 30.06.2023, which was further affirmed by the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal under the PMLA. A true copy of the PAO No.01/2023 in ECIR/02/HIU/2018 dated 07.01.2023 is produced herewith and is marked as Exhibit R5(a). A true copy of the Corrigendum to PAO No.01/2023 is produced herewith and is marked as Exhibit R5(b). A true copy of the Order of the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal No.FPA-PMLA-6583/DLI/2023 dated 30.05.2025 in PAO No.1/2023 in ECIR/02/HIU/2018 is produced herewith and is marked as Exhibit R5(c).

                  7. It is most respectfully submitted that the Directorate of Enforcement by the above-mentioned Provisional Attachment Order has attached the following properties:

                  a. Villas bearing nos.377(H), 377(J), 377(R) and 377(S) of Munnar villa vista project.

                  b. The swimming pool, lobby/reception area, administration wing, electrical and plumbing room, bore well, road/Pathway and undeveloped land in the scheduled properties in the project have also been attached.

                  It is also respectfully submitted that the Special Task Force of the Directorate of Enforcement is presently in the process of taking physical possession of the properties confirmed under attachment.

                  8. It is respectfully submitted that although the specific property described by the petitioner as Building No. 337/B is not included in the provisional attachment order, the revenue and local authorities are statutorily bound to ensure that no development, construction or alteration is carried out on any of the properties under attachment; and no utilisation or interference is made by the petitioner or any third party with respect to the attached common areas falling within the project, as listed in the provisional Attachment Order. Any assignment of a building number to those infrastructures that may facilitate use or development of the attached assets would directly impede the lawful process initiated under the PMLA.”

10. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 16.01.2026. Paragraphs 3 to 7 of that counter affidavit read thus:

                  “3. It is submitted that a Luxury Hotel under the name Munnar Villa Vista Project is being constructed on approximately 10 acres (986.5 Cent) of landed property comprised in Survey numbers 817/1, 817/2, 817/3, 817/4 of Mankulam Village. It may be noted that Sri. M.K. Ashraf, Sri. Rajendran Unni Moideen Ambat Muhammed, Sri. Rasil Chungathil Ebrahim, Sri. Muhammed Abdul Khader and Sri.Anwar Pootheri, the writ petitioner herein appears to be partners in the above mentioned project.

                  4. It is submitted that the construction works pertaining to the above mentioned project was stopped in pursuance with the arrest of Sri. M K Ashraf by the Enforcement Directorate. Subsequently, the construction works were resumed under the aegis of Sri. Muhammed Abdul Khader the son of Sri. M K Ashraf. It may be noted that building numbers were received for 22 buildings, from the Mankulam Grama Panchyat, out of which 7 Villas were operational and the remaining buildings were under construction.

                  5. It is submitted that on 21.07.2023, the Enforcement Directorate had sealed 4 buildings numbered as MGP 71 377 H, 377 J, 377 R, 377 S, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and a board was established at the site. Further, an extent of 6.759 acres of property belonging to the above mentioned project was kept under the surveillance of ED. It is understood that the buildings belonging to the Munnar Villa Vista project, which are owned by Sri. M K Ashraf and others, which have been partially sealed by the ED, are being transferred to the names of people who have registered and purchased the land and that steps are being taken under the aegis of Sri. M K Ashraf and the other partners to open and operate the said buildings. It is submitted that considering the fact that ED has seized some of the buildings therein and that about 6.79 acres is kept under surveillance by ED, it would only be appropriate to stop all such transfers and purchases of the property, until confirmation is received from the ED in that regard. It is submitted that appropriate directions have already been issued to Additional Director General of Police (intelligence), the District Police Chief, Idukki, District Registrar, Idukki, Tahsildar, Devikulam Taluk and the Joint Director, Local Self Government, Idukki to take further actions in this regard.

                  6. It is submitted that directions have been issued to the District Police Chief, Idukki and the Joint Director of Local Self Government Department, Idukki to submit reports on Exhibit P4 application preferred by the writ petitioner herein. A detailed additional counter affidavit shall be filed by this respondent on receipt of reports in this regard.

7. It is submitted that as mentioned above, further steps in this regard can only be taken on receipt of clarifications from the Enforcement Directorate as to the extent of land and buildings kept under their surveillance. In such circumstances, the above writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed”.

11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the Mankulam Grama Panchayat for respondents 1 and 2, the learned Senior Government Pleader and also the learned Standing Counsel for the additional 5th respondent.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that, as per Section 235 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat has a duty to tag the building number on the building of the petitioner, since, admittedly, the building was issued with the number by the Grama Panchayat.

13. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that by Ext.P3 order, the District Collector has prohibited the alienation of the properties attached by the additional 5th respondent in a PMLA case. Though M/S. Munnar Villa Vista Private Limited challenged the said order by filing MSA No.112 of 2025 before this Court, the same was dismissed as per the judgment dated 09.02.2026. The learned Senior Government Pleader would further submit that though the attachment order issued by the additional 5th respondent does not include the property of the petitioner, it pertains to the common area enjoyed by the building owners, including the way leading to the property of the petitioner.

14. The learned Standing Counsel for the Mankulam Grama Panchayat would submit that it is true that the Panchayat has assigned a number to the building of the petitioner. However, to tag the building number, Panchayat has to identify the same since all the buildings in the villa project are lying in the very same compound.

15. The learned Standing Counsel for the additional 5th respondent would submit that as per Ext.R5(a) attachment order dated 07.01.2023 issued by the adjudicating authority, the common areas in the villa project are attached. The tagging of the building number will not give any special right to the petitioner. The petitioner cannot claim any right on the common areas attached by the additional 5th respondent, on the basis of the tagging of the building number.

16. There is no dispute between the parties on the point that the building purchased by the petitioner by virtue of Ext.P5 sale deed bearing No.577/2021 dated 08.03.2021 of the Sub Registrar Office, Devikulam, is assigned with door No.377/B of Mankulam Grama Panchayat. Ext.R5(a) order of attachment and the counter affidavits filed by the 3rd respondent and the additional 5th respondent would show that the property of the petitioner is not included in the attachment order issued by the additional 5th respondent. But the common areas, including the way leading to the property of the petitioner, are included in the aforesaid attachment order.

17. It is appropriate to refer Section 235 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, based on which the petitioner is seeking the relief in the writ petition. The said Section read thus:

                  “Numbering of buildings

                  (1) The Secretary of the Village Panchayat may in any area, where this Act is applicable, affix a number of a particular size and form on the side or outer door of any building or on any place at the entrance to the compound.

                  (2) No person shall without any legal authority, destroy, remove or wipe out any such number affixed on any building in any such area.

                  (3) When a number is affixed under sub-section (1) the owner of the building is liable to keep it up and renumber in case it is removed or faded away and if he defaults in doing so, the Secretary may, by notice, require him to put the number again.” [Underline supplied]

18. A reading of the aforesaid provisions under Section 235 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, would make it clear the Secretary of the Panchayat has duty to affix the number of a particular size and form on the side or the outer door of any building or any place at the entrance of the compound, of a building to which number is assigned by the Grama Panchayat. The 1st respondent, Panchayat, has no contention that such a duty is not on the Secretary of the Panchayat. The only submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat is that in order to affix the building number, it has to be identified by the Panchayat.

19. Having considered the pleadings and the materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the 2nd respondent can be directed to take a decision in Ext.P4 representation submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law.

                  In the result, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to take a decision in Ext.P4 representation dated 16.05.2025, submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner as well as the authorised representative of the 5th respondent an opportunity of hearing, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, we make it clear that, this direction is issued solely noting the allotment of the building number to the building of the petitioner by the Panchayat, and this judgment will not give any special right to the petitioner against the legal steps taken by the additional 5th respondent Directorate of Enforcement against the common property mentioned in the counter affidavit of the additional 5th respondent or prevent the 1st respondent Grama Panchayat from taking appropriate decision as permitted under law, in view of the attachment of the common areas by the additional 5th respondent.