UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus RAJA MOHAMMED AMIR MOHAMMAD KHAN

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 390 · Decided: 21-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
RAJA MOHAMMED AMIR MOHAMMAD KHAN 
OCTOBER 21, 2005 
B 
[ASHOK BHAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Enemy Property Act, 1968: 
Section 18-Enemy property-Divesting of-Held, not permanently vested 
C in the custodian but is limited to the temporary taking over of the possession, 
management and control over the property only-Owner is not divested of his 
right, title and interest in the property as under the Act title does not come to 
vest in the Custodian-Section 6 and 8. 
D 
Section 18-Enemy property-Inheritor/successor, an Indian citizen--
Rights of-Held, become the sole owner as having acquired the title, the 
property ceases to be enemy property. 
Administrative law: 
E 
Executive-Role and duty of-Has to discharge its duties in a just wanner 
otherwise people will lose faith in the governance. 
Respondent is the son of Raja of Mahmudabad in the District of 
Sitapur in Uttar Pradesh. In December, 1957 father of the respondent 
migrated to Pakistan and became a citizen of Pakistan. However, the 
F respondent and his mother Rani Kaniz Abdi (since deceased) continued 
to reside in India as Indian citizen. The erstwhile Raj a of Mahmudabad, 
father of respondent, died in London on 14.10.1973. The respondent herein 
is the sole heir of late Raja by virtue of Section 22 of Oudh Estates Act, 
1869 as also by virtue of custom and usage of the respondent's family. 
Respondent made numerous representations requesting the Union oflndia 
G as well as the custodian to release the property as the same could not 
continue to vest with the Custodian after the death of respondent's father 
and having vested in him, as an Indian citizen. Since despite protracted 
correspondence over several years, the appellant failed to hand over the 
properties to the respondent, the respondent filed Writ Petition in the High 
H 
390 
U.O.I. v. RAJA MOHAMMED AMIR MOHAMMAD KHAN 
391 
Court of Judicature at Bombay praying, inter alia, for a declaration that A 
the properties vested with the Custodian ceased to be enemy property and 
stood divested from him and that the possession of the Custodian was 
illegal and without authority of law. By the impugned judgment the High 
Court has allowed the writ petition and held that on an interpretation of 
Sections 6, 8 and 18 of the Enemy Property Act, due to vesting of the B 
property in the Custodian, the owner is not divested of his right, title and 
interest in the property as under the Act title does not come to vest in the 
Custodian. The vesting is limited to the temporary taking over of the 
possession, management and control over the property only. It was 
conceded before the High Court by the counsel appearing for the 
appellants that respondent who was an Indian citizen and was the heir C 
and suco:essor of his late father, Raja of Mahmudabad. It was held that 
the properties were no longer enemy properties as the title of the same 
now vested in an Indian citizen. The High Court accordingly directed the 
custodian to handover possession of the properties, actual or juridical, as 
, the case may be, to the respondent within three months from the date of 
passing of the order. 
D 
In appeal before this court, the appellant contended that in view of 
Section 13 vesting of the property of the enemy or enemy subject in the 
Custodian or order of Custodian or the proceedings in consequence thereof 
are not invalidated or affected by reason that at the material time such E 
an enemy subject had died or ceased to be enemy. Laying stress on the 
provisions of Section 18 it was contended that only the Central 
Government can divest the Custodian of the enemy property by passing 
a general or special order directing that any enemy property vested in 
the Custodian 11nder the Act shall .be divested from him and be returned 
in such manner as may be prescribed to the owner thereof or to such other F 
person as may be specified in the direction and only thereupon such 
property shall cease to vest in the Custodian and revest in such owner or 
such other person. 
The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the vesting of the 
properties in the Custodian under the Enemy Property Act is limited to G 
the extent of possession, management and control over the properties only. 
The right, title or interest of the owner is not taken away. After the death 
of his father the respondent became the sole owner of the properties which 
·· had been taken over by the Custodian of Enemy Proper

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.