Buniyad HusaIn and Others Vs. Zila Adhikari, Barabanki and Another - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
property - enemy property - section 2(c) of enemy property act, 1968 - no reason given for directing land to be recorded as enemy property - no opportunity given - land in dispute not covered by definition of enemy property - impugned order quashed. - - even in the counter-affidavit, respondents failed to substantiate their claim that the land in dispute was enemy property.r.h. zaidi, j.1. heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel and also perused the record.2. by means of this petition under article 226 of the constitution of india, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 27.4.94, whereby respondent no. 1 has directed the land in dispute to be recorded as enemy property in the revenue papers.3. according to the case set out in the writ petition, land in dispute is ancestral property of the petitioners. it was so recorded in the revenue papers since 1932. during consolidation proceedings also, the name of the petitioners were recorded over the land in dispute as tenureholders. no objection, whatsoever, was raised by any body. it is stated that the order dated 27.4.1994, was passed by respondent no. 1 without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. as soon as petitioners came to know about the aforesaid order, they approached this court and filed present petition.4. from the document on record, it is apparent that the land in dispute was recorded in revenue papers in the name of inayat husaln. dildar husain and ahmad husain, who happen to be ancestors of the petitioners. during consolidation proceedings, name of the petitioners were recorded. none of the said persons, is alleged to have migrated to pakistan or to any other country. therefore, there was no question of the land being treated as enemy property. in the impugned order, no reason whatsoever, has been recorded by respondent no. 1, whereby he directed that the property in dispute should be recorded as enemy property. under enemy property act. 1968, enemy property has been defined as under :2. definitions.--in this act, unless the context otherwise requires : (a) ....................................................................... (b) ............................................................................. (c) 'enemy property' means any property for the time being belonging to or held or managed on behalf of an enemy, an enemy subject or an enemy firm : provided that where an individual enemy subject dies in the territories to which this act extends, any property which immediately before his death, belonged to or was held by him, or was managed on his behalf, may, notiwithstanding his death, continue to be recorded as enemy property for the purposes of this act. 5. land in dispute does not come within the definition of enemy property as the same never belonged to or held or managed on behalf of an enemy, enemy subject or enemy firm. even in the counter-affidavit, respondents failed to substantiate their claim that the land in dispute was enemy property. only it has been stated that on 7.11.1994 a complaint was filed by mohd. rafiq. on the basis of which enquiry report was submitted by tehsildar. thereafter, order dated 27.4.1994 was passed. facts stated in the counter-affidavit, are absurd on theface of it, inasmuch as, order appears to have been passed much before the complaint is alleged to have been filed with respect to land in dispute. further no opportunity of hearing or to explain their case was afforded to the petitioners before passing the impugned order.6. in view of the aforesaid facts, writ petition is liable to be allowed.7. writ petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. order dated 27.4.1994 passed by respondent no. 1 is quashed.