Dismissed

Nazim Adeel and Another v. Union of India and 3 Others

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2018WRIC/16964/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the declaration of certain properties as enemy property. The court held that petitioners had a statutory remedy via representation under Section 18 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968, and declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed on the ground of available alternative remedy before the Central Government under Section 18 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968.

Nazim Adeel and Another Vs Union of India and 3 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16964 of 2018 Petitioner :- Nazim Adeel And Another Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Pramod Kumar Singh

¶2

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶3

Heard Sri K.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶4

Petitioners have preferred this petition challenging the order dated 03.04.2018 passed by the Custodian, Enemy Property, Lucknow by which the two houses 1816 and 1818 situated in Mohalla Bhawwalpuri, Pargana and Tehsil Tanda, District Rampur and land of gata No. 827 having an area of 1.5220 hectares situated in village Senta Khera, Pargana and Tehsil Tanda, District Rampur have been declared to be the enemy property.

¶5

Against the order declaring the property to be enemy in nature, the petitioners have a remedy before the Central Government by way of a representation under Section 18 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968.

¶6

The Central Government in exercise of the powers under Section 18 of the said Act had issued an order known as Transfer of Property (Vested as Enemy Property in the Custodian) Order, 2018 which also provides that any person aggrieved by the order of vesting of a property in Custodian under the Act and the Rules made there under may make a representation to the Joint Secretary in the Ministry or Department of Government of India dealing with the matters relating to enemy property.

¶7

In view of the above provisions, as the petitioners have a remedy of a representation before the Central Government, we do not deem it proper to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction in the matter and leaves it upon the petitioners to avail the above remedy.

¶8

The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. It is expected that the representation, if any, of the petitioners would be considered most expeditiously.

¶9

Order Date :- 30.7.2018 Nirmal Sinha

Nazim Adeel and Another v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazim Adeel and Another v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Phool Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Chhote Lal Vs State of U P and 11 Others

Viveka Nand Jain Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Pradumn Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Hari Ram Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others

Mumtaz Ahmad Vs Union of India and 4 Others