The Allahabad High Court has delivered a stinging rebuke to state authorities for withholding a widow’s home, ruling that the hereditary art of weaving should not be “killed” by displacing a family upon the death of its patriarch.
The Court made it clear that Government Officials cannot act contrary to their own records to deny a citizen’s rightful claim.
The Court observed that,
“In a family of weavers in India, all members do weaving and the weaving is a hereditary art that passed on to the next generation. We cannot permit death of this art by displacing the members of the family of a weavers from the colony upon the death of head of the family.”
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Indrajeet Shukla, allowed the writ petition filed by Kamrunnisha, the widow of a local weaver. The Court directed the Assistant Director of Handloom & Textiles in Varanasi to immediately restore possession of the property to her.
Read also: https://practicinglawyer.in/allahabad-hc-live-in-relationship-spousal-rights/
The dispute centers on Quarter No. 3 in the Bunkar Colony of Varanasi, a housing scheme specifically launched for silk weavers. The petitioner’s husband, late Mati Ullah, was the original allottee and had lived there for years while paying regular rent for the 25 * 50 square foot premises.
Trouble began after Mati Ullah’s death when two individuals, Mohd. Shoeb and Mohd. Juned, forcibly grabbed a portion of the house.
Though the petitioner successfully fought a decade-long legal battle to have these trespassers evicted, the state authorities took the keys and refused to hand the rooms back to her.
In this context, the key question before the Court was whether the State could legally withhold possession from a lawful heir solely by claiming loss of the original allotment documents. The state’s defense was weak and unconvincing.
While the respondent’s Counsel argued that no allotment letter existed in their current files, the Court noted that the Government’s own orders issued in 2014 had expressly recognized Mati Ullah as the lawful allottee.
Furthermore, a 1996 committee list prepared by the Additional District Magistrate had already verified the family’s occupancy.
The Court drew an “adverse inference” against the State after Officials failed to produce the colony’s master allotment list despite a direct judicial order.
The Bench was particularly unimpressed by the State’s attempt to question the petitioner’s “locus standi” or right to the property so late in the matter.
The Bench noted that the Government had previously used the petitioner’s complaints to evict the trespassers, only to then turn around and treat her like a stranger to the property.
The Court further held that,
“Once the allotment could not be disputed there was no justification for the authorities to have withheld possession of any part of the quarter, especially after evicting the unauthorized occupants. Thus, such retention of possession is wholly illegal, arbitrary and is without authority of law.”
Ultimately, the Court quashed the resistance from the textile department and ordered the execution of a formal transfer deed in Kamrunnisha’s name.
The ruling ensures that the widow of a weaver receives the same protections and rights originally intended for her husband under the state’s welfare scheme.
Case: Kamrunnisha vs State of U.P. and 3 others
Case No: Writ – C No. – 37114 of 2023
Date of Order: 16.04.2026
Status: Allowed
