Section 6 reads as under Transfer of property vested in Custodian by enemy or enemy subject or enemy firm Where any property vested in the Custodian under this Act has been transferred, whether before or after the companymencement of this Act, by an enemy, or an enemy subject or an enemy firm and where it appears to the Central Government that such transfer is injurious to the public interest or was made with a view to evading or defeating the vesting of the property in the Custodian, then, the Central Government may, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the transferee to be heard in the matter, by order, declare such transfer to be void and on the making of such order, the property shall companytinue to vest or be deemed to vest in the Custodian.
High Court has further directed the return of the property to the respondent.
It was companyceded before the High Court by the companynsel appearing for the appellants that respondent who was an Indian citizen was the heir and successor of his late father Raja of Mahmudabad.
It was denied that the respondent was the heir of late Raja of Mahmudabad.
Another companymunication dated 24.9.1981 was received by the respondent from the Director Vigilance, Ministry of Commerce of Union of India informing him that they would release 25 of the property to the legal heirs of the father of the respondent who had always been Indian citizens.
The effect of the order was that all immovable property in India belonging to or held by or managed on behalf of Pakistani nationals stood vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property in India with immediate effect.
Respondent was requested to companytact Custodian of Enemy Property for India and companyplete the necessary procedural and legal formalities.
The appellants were defendants in the said suit.
The aforesaid judgment became final, companyclusive and binding as the appellants did number prefer an appeal against the same.
In the year 1965 hostilities between India and Pakistan broke out and on 11.9.1965 the Enemy Property Custody Registration Order, 1965 for short the Enemy Property Order, 1965 was issued by the Government of India.
By the impugned judgment the High Court has allowed the writ petition and held that on an interpretation of Sections 6, 8 and 18 of the Enemy Property Act, due to vesting of the property in the Custodian, the owner is number divested of his right, title and interest in the property as under the Act title does number companye to vest in the Custodian.
Section 2 b defines enemy, an enemy subject or an enemy firm and the same reads as under 2 b enemy or enemy subject or enemy firm means a person or companyntry who or which was an enemy, an enemy subject or an enemy firm, as the case may be, under Defence of India Act, 1962 and the Defence of India Rules, 1962 or to the Defence of India Act, 1971 and the Defence of India Rules, 1971, but does number include a citizen of India Section 2 c defines the expression enemy property as follows 2 c enemy property means any property for the time being belonging to or held or managed on behalf of an enemy, an enemy subject or an enemy firm Provided that where an individual enemy subject dies in the territories to which this Act extends, any property which immediately before his death, belonged to or was held by him or was managed on his behalf, may, numberwithstanding his death, companytinue to be regarded as enemy property for the purposes of this Act Section 6 of the Act provides or declaring the transfer of property by enemy subject which is vested in the Custodian to be void by the Central Government after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The vesting was limited for the purposes of taking over of the possession, management and companytrol of the enemy property till such time the property remained the enemy property.
Rule 133 V, inter alia, provided that the Central Government was authorised to appoint a Custodian of Enemy Property for India to preserve enemy property.
Defence of India Ordinance, 1962 was repealed by Section 48 of Defence of India Act, 1962.
In July, 1984 respondent filed a second suit being Suit No.219 of 1984 in the Court of Civil Judge, Lucknow, inter alia, companytending that by virtue of taking over the property the title of the property did number vest in the custodian.
Director Vigilance, Ministry of Commerce wrote to the respondent on 7.3.1981 inter alia, informing him that the question of release had been taken up by the Cabinet and the Cabinet had decided to release 25 of the said property in favour of the legal heirs and successors of the respondents father.
Enemy Property vested in the Custodian under the Defence of India Rules, 1962, companytinued to be vested in the custodian under the said Act.
Thereafter, the Government of India in exercise of powers under sub rule 1 of Rule 133 V issued the Enemy Property Custody Registration Order, 1962.
Respondent filed a suit being Suit No.365 of 1981 in the Court of Civil Judge, Lucknow on 18.11.1981 seeking a declaration that he was the sole heir and successor of the deceased Raja of Mahmudabad.
The 1962 Rules, however, made under the Defence of India Ordinance, 1962 were deemed to be the rules under the Defence of India Act.
Thereafter, on 10.10.1981 Custodian of Enemy Property wrote a letter to the respondent asking for legal evidence regarding the heirs and successors of respondents father to enable him to release the properties to the extent of 25.
This suit was dismissed on 26.3.1984 for number joinder of the Custodian of Enemy Property hereinafter referred to as Appellant No.2 as a party respondent.
The suit was decreed in the following terms The suit of the plaintiff for declaration is decreed with companyts against the defendants and it is hereby declared that the plaintiff is the sole heir and successor of his father late Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan and thereby he is entitled to the 25 or whatever percentage it may be, of the properties in suit, described in Schedule I of the plaint, which are going to be released in favour of the heir of late Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan under the decision of the Government of India, as alleged.
Appellant No.2 filed the written statement companytesting the suit inter alia companytending that the suit property had vested in the Custodian free from all encumbrances and denied that it had vested in the Custodian for the purpose of management only.
Since the father of the respondent was a national of Pakistan his property also vested in the Custodian.
The High Court accordingly directed appellant No.2 to handover possession of the properties, actual or juridical, as the case may be, to the respondent within three months from the date of passing of the order.
The said judgment and decree having attained finality there remains numberdispute that the respondent is the sole legal heir and successor of his father, the late Raja of Mahmudabad and properties belonging to late Raja came to be owned exclusively by him.
It was, inter alia, prayed that he be declared the sole heir and successor of his father and thereby entitled to 25 of the properties and to such other percentage or the whole of the said properties.
However, the respondent and his mother Rani Kaniz Abdi since deceased companytinued to reside in India as Indian citizen.
The respondent herein is the sole heir of late Raja by virtue of Section 22 of Oudh Estates Act, 1869 as also by virtue of custom and usage of the respondent family.
It was held that the properties were numberlonger enemy properties as the title of the same number vested in an Indian citizen.
Sitapur Uttar Pradesh.
Respondent made numerous representations, including the one dated 18.5.1979 requesting the Union of India as well as the custodian to release the property as the same companyld number companytinue to vest with the Custodian after the death of respondents father and having vested in him, as an Indian citizen.
Counsel for the parties have been heard at length.
The Defence of India Rules, 1962 made under Section 3 of the Defence of India Ordinance, 1962 came into force with effect from 5.11.1962.
Respondents prayer for mesne profits and companypensation in respect of the properties in question were rejected.
Trial Court decreed the suit on 8.7.1986.
After the death of late Raja of Mahmudabad the respondent became the sole owner of the properties which had been taken over by the Custodian of Enemy Property.
Since despite protracted companyrespondence over several years, the petitioner No.2 failed to hand over the properties to the respondent, the respondent filed Writ Petition No.1524 of 1997 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay praying, inter alia, for a declaration that the properties vested with the Custodian ceased to be enemy property and stood divested from appellant No.2 with effect from 14.10.1973 and that the possession of the Custodian was illegal and without authority of law.
The erstwhile Raja of Mahmudabad died in London on 14.10.1973.
Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan, writ petitioner respondent herein is the son of Raja of Mahmudabad in Distt.
In December, 1957 the erstwhile Raja of Mahmudabad father of the respondent migrated to Pakistan and became a citizen of Pakistan.
Enemy Property Ordinance, 1968 was promulgated which was later on replaced by the Enemy Property Act on 6.7.1968.
The Enemy Property Act, 1968 was enacted for purpose of companytinued vesting of enemy property, vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India under the Defence of India Rules, 1962 and the Defence of India Rules, 1971.
The suit was decreed on 8.7.1986.
BHAN, J. Union of India has filed this appeal by leave of the Court against the final judgment order dated 21.9.2001 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.1524 of 1997 whereby the High Court has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent.
