HC quashes order declaring five Vile Parle land parcels enemy properties

A division bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Shyam C Chandak held that the mutation entries dated May 17, 2023, made pursuant to a communication from the Custodian of Enemy Property, could not be sustained as the mandatory procedure under the Enemy Property Act, 1968, had not been followed.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Wednesday quashed three orders passed in December 2021 declaring five land parcels in Vile Parle as enemy properties. It also set aside mutation entries made by revenue authorities replacing the names of the landowners with that of the Custodian of Enemy Property for India in the ownership records.

HC quashes order declaring five Vile Parle land parcels enemy properties

A division bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Shyam C Chandak held that the mutation entries dated May 17, 2023, made pursuant to a communication from the Custodian of Enemy Property, could not be sustained as the mandatory procedure under the Enemy Property Act, 1968, had not been followed.

In December 2021, the Custodian informed the district collector that the five land parcels, originally Wakf property, were enemy properties because at least one person claiming an interest in them was a Pakistani national. Based on this communication, revenue authorities deleted the names of the recorded owners – Mehta Impex Pvt Ltd, Mantri Brothers and Khan Bahadur Haji Shaikh – and recorded the Custodian as the owner, prompting the landowners to move the high court.

“It is only after the aforesaid procedure is completed culminating in the issuance of a certificate under Section 5A that the Custodian can issue instructions to the Collector for making mutation entry in the revenue record showing it as an enemy property and not otherwise,” the bench said.

The court also noted that in an earlier round of litigation, the beneficial interest of the only Pakistani national linked to the property, a woman from the landowning family who had married a Pakistani citizen, had already been taken over by the Custodian.

Following consultations with the Union law ministry, the Custodian had issued a no-objection certificate, and the high court had disposed of the matter through a consent order in December 2007, settling the Custodian’s claim over the property.

In view of this, the bench held that the Custodian’s fresh inquiry in 2019 and the subsequent communication issued to the district collector in December 2021 were in “complete contravention” of the Enemy Property Act and Rules, and in “flagrant violation” of the 2007 consent order passed by the high court.