Court Invalidates Actions by Custodian of Enemy Property, Upholds Principles of Natural Justice
In a landmark decision, the Bombay High Court has ruled that Wakf properties cannot be treated as Enemy Properties unless they are validly vested by the Central Government or the Custodian under the Enemy Property Act, 1968. The judgment, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justices Suman Shyam and Shyam C. Chandak, found that the principles of natural justice were violated in the process of declaring the properties in question as Enemy Properties.
The case, titled Mehta Impex Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra, revolved around the alleged vesting of several Wakf properties with the Custodian of Enemy Property, which the petitioners contended was done without legal foundation. The court analyzed the Enemy Property Act, 1968 and the Enemy Property Rules, 2015, underscoring that the procedures prescribed by these laws, including serving notices and providing an opportunity to show cause, were not adhered to by the Custodian.
The court highlighted that the Wakf properties were never declared as Enemy Properties by the Central Government under the relevant Defence of India Rules. The judgment also invalidated the mutation entries made in the revenue records that recorded the Custodian of Enemy Property as the owner, emphasizing that such actions were taken without jurisdiction and contrary to the principles of natural justice.
Additionally, the court noted that the consent order passed by the High Court in 2007, which was based on a settlement between the parties, remained valid and could not be nullified by statutory provisions. The court clarified that the statutory provisions of Section 22A of the Enemy Property Act, 1968, which purported to override court judgments, did not apply to consent orders passed by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The judgment further addressed the doctrine of alternate remedy, stating that the High Court could exercise its discretion to entertain writ petitions when impugned actions lacked legal foundation or jurisdiction.
The decision is expected to have significant implications for the treatment of Wakf properties and the application of the Enemy Property Act in India, reaffirming the necessity for due process and adherence to natural justice.
Bottom line:-
Wakf properties cannot be treated as Enemy Properties in the absence of valid vesting by Central Government or Custodian under the Enemy Property Act, 1968. Principles of natural justice must be adhered to before any property is declared as Enemy Property.
Statutory provision(s): Enemy Property Act, 1968 Sections 5, 5A, 22A; Enemy Property Rules, 2015 Rule 3, Rule 4
Mehta Impex Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2945198
