Disposed

Smt. Angoori Devi and Others v. Union of India and Others

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2019WRIC/6777/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an order declaring petitioner's land as enemy property. Finding insufficient evidence that the original tenure holder acquired Pakistani citizenship, the Court directed the petitioners to approach the Central Government within six weeks for a fresh representation under the Amendment and Validation Act, 2017.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed. Petitioners directed to approach competent authority (Central Government) within six weeks to move a representation for reconsideration of the property status.

Smt. Angoori Devi and Others Vs Union of India and Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6777 of 2010

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Angoori Devi And Others Respondent :- Union Of India And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- P.C. Jain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Asgi 2010/252,Ranauk Parekh,Somveer,Upendra Nath Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit has been filed today by Sri P. C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri P. C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, though the list is being revised, no one is present on behalf of the Union of India. Dr. D. K. Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is present representing respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 and perused the record.

¶7

By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order dated 14.01.2010 passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the property in question which is a landed property recorded in the name of the petitioner, has been held to be enemy property under the Enemy Property Act, 1968 which has come to be amended in 1977 and then was re-enforced by the Amendment and Validation Act, 2017.

¶8

By assailing the order impugned, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the only evidence that has led to passing of the order is some letter of the District Magistrate dated 25.07.1975. However, he submits that when the notices were issued no such letter accompanied the notice and while the original vendee/predecessor in the interest of the petitioner was alive, no such notice was issued and new proceeding is sought to be initiated after more than three decades.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, we find that the property which was sold to the predecessor-in-interest of petitioner was of 09.06.1975 and this admittedly, is the period in which the emergency was invoked due to Pakistan's aggression, however, whether the vendor had become a Pakistani National by leaving India or not, is a question of fact that requires determination.

¶10

Per perusal of the order impugned, we find that except the letter dated 25.07.1975 there is no other such evidence or material available that may lead one to conclude that original tenure holder had left for Pakistan and acquired citizenship of that country. Since, it is a question of fact finding enquiry to be conducted and under the Amendment and Validation Act, 1917, Section 18 provides for a representation to be moved by the party concerned, which is aggrieved against the order of the Custodian of Enemy Property, we hereby provided for the petitioners to approach the competent authority, namely, the Central Government under the Act of 2017 and we further provide that in the event, the petitioners approach the competent authority within a period of six weeks from today, their application/representation shall be considered on merits and strictly in

¶11

accordance with law and the Central Government/Competent Authority shall look into the veracity of the letter dated 25.07.1975, by supplying a copy thereof to the learned counsel for the petitioners as of necessity, within two weeks of the submission of representation to enable them to put up their valid defence before the Competent Authority within a further period of two weeks, final decision shall be taken within a further period of two weeks by the Competent Authority. We further provide that until disposal of the petitioner's representation, petitioners' right in respect of their possession and enjoyment over the property in question, shall not be disturbed or interfered with in any manner, however, the petitioners shall also not create any third party right in respect of the property in question.

¶12

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 9.12.2019

¶14

Nitin Verma

¶15

(Ajit Kumar,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.)

Smt. Angoori Devi and Others v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Angoori Devi and Others v. Union of India and 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

Shafiq and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ram Saran Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

M/S Arun Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shri Krishna Goyal Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Neelam Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Iqbal Ahmad Sons Vs State of U.P. and Others