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

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