Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against Income Tax Reassessment, Directs Petitioner to File Appeal Adultery Requires Proof of Sexual Relations, Mere Emotional Attachment is No Ground to Deny Maintenance: MP High Court Co-Sharer Cannot Sell Specific Land Without Partition: Punjab & Haryana High Court Declares Mutation Illegal When Best Evidence is Withheld, an Adverse Inference Must Be Drawn Against the Prosecution: Supreme Court Slams State for Procedural Lapses When the State Itself Did Not Challenge the Earlier Judgment, Third Parties Cannot Litigate on Its Behalf: Supreme Court When Parties Have Agreed to a Fixed Compensation, Courts Cannot Rewrite the Contract to Award Additional Damages: Supreme Court When an Employer Deprives an Employee of Work Through Illegal Action, They Must Face the Consequences: Supreme Court Condemns State Transport Corporation’s “Fraud on Court” Possession Handed Over Before the Sale Deed Makes the Agreement a Conveyance: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal Against Stamp Duty Demand Promissory Estoppel Cannot Override Public Interest: Supreme Court Upholds Goa’s Power Tariff Rebate Withdrawal Tenants Cannot Stall Public Projects Indefinitely; Eviction Under MRTP Act is Legally Valid: Bombay High Court High Court Cannot Reassess Labour Court's Findings Like an Appellate Body: Delhi HC Consensual Physical Relationship Over Four Years Cannot Constitute Rape Under Section 376(2)(n): Karnataka High Court An Injured Witness Comes with a Built-In Guarantee of Truth: Allahabad HC Eviction Cannot Be Ordered Solely Because Evidence is Unrebutted: Kerala HC Encroachment Claims Do Not Justify Forcible Dispossession: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Injunction, Dismisses Appeal Limitation | An Educated Litigant Cannot Claim the Same Protection as an Illiterate One: Delhi HC Madras High Court Dismisses PhonePe’s Trademark Infringement Suit Against BundlePe & LatePe Bare Injunction Suit Unsustainable Without Declaration of Title When Ownership is Disputed: Karnataka High Court SARFASI | Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies Essential in SARFAESI Matters: Kerala High Court Once Penalty Period Ends, Employee Must Be Reconsidered for Promotion: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Petitioner’s Father Did Not Fall Within Definition of Enemy – Kerala High Court Quashes Land Classification Under Enemy Property Act

18 January 2025 12:28 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


High Court affirms Indian citizenship status and rules against land inclusion as enemy property.

The Kerala High Court has quashed the inclusion of a petitioner’s land in the enemy property list by the Custodian of Enemy Property for India. In a significant judgment delivered by Justice Viju Abraham, the court emphasized the petitioner’s father’s status as an Indian citizen, determined under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, thereby negating the application of the Enemy Property Act, 1968.

The petitioner, P. Ummer Koya, filed a writ petition challenging the inclusion of 20.500 cents of his land in Parappanangadi village in the enemy property list by the Custodian of Enemy Property for India. The petitioner’s grandfather had originally purchased the land, which was subsequently divided among his four children. The petitioner, through various sale deeds, consolidated ownership of the entire property.

In 1953, the petitioner’s father went to Karachi, Pakistan, for a short period seeking employment but returned to India. He faced accusations of acquiring Pakistani citizenship, leading him to seek a formal determination of his nationality. In 1990, the Government of India confirmed his status as an Indian citizen, a decision that remained unchallenged.

Despite this, the land was included in the enemy property list, preventing the petitioner from paying basic tax on it. The petitioner contested this inclusion, arguing it was unjustified given his father’s confirmed Indian citizenship.

The court placed significant weight on the citizenship determination by the Government of India. “The findings in Ext.P13, confirming that the petitioner’s father did not voluntarily acquire Pakistani citizenship and continued as an Indian citizen, remain unchallenged and in force,” the judgment noted.

Justice Abraham observed that for the property to be classified as enemy property under the Enemy Property Act, 1968, the individual must meet the definition of an enemy as per the Defence of India Act, 1962 and 1971. “The petitioner’s father, having been determined as an Indian citizen, does not fall within the definition of an enemy under these acts,” the court stated.

The judgment thoroughly examined the provisions of the Enemy Property Act, 1968, and the Defence of India Rules, 1971. The court found that the definition of ‘enemy’ under these statutes did not apply to the petitioner’s father. “The term ‘enemy’ includes individuals from a country committing aggression against India, but the petitioner’s father, confirmed as an Indian citizen, cannot be classified as such,” the judgment emphasized.

Justice Viju Abraham remarked, “The Central Government, being the authority as per the Citizenship Act, 1955, has categorically found that the petitioner’s father continues as a citizen of India. This finding remains unmodified and binding.”

The Kerala High Court’s judgment underscores the importance of formal citizenship determinations in disputes involving the classification of property under the Enemy Property Act. By reaffirming the citizenship status of the petitioner’s father, the court has clarified that properties owned by confirmed Indian citizens cannot be classified as enemy properties. This decision not only provides relief to the petitioner but also sets a precedent for similar cases, reinforcing the legal framework for property rights in India.

Date of Decision: 24th June 2024
 

Similar News