the goan I network
MARGAO
Many a Goan whose properties were declared as enemy property by the Custodian of Enemy Property on the premise the owners were residents of Pakistan, can look forward to getting their properties back if one goes by the recent Judgement of the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
Two Salcete residents from Camurlim and Utorda-Majorda have already got a big relief after the High Court has not only declared null and void the order October 8, 2010 issued by the Custodian of Enemy Property purportedly under Sections 5 and 24 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 (EP Act), but had issued directions to the South district Collector and Salcete Mamlatdar to restore the names of the petitioners in the survey records relating to the properties in question.
The High Court, however, has granted liberty to the Custodian of Enemy Property and the Union of India through the Home Ministry to take fresh steps in relation to the property in terms of EP Act, 1968 and EP Rules, 2015 should, in the opinion of the Respondents, there exist grounds for taking such steps.
Salcete Mamlatdar Prataprao Gaonkar told The Goan that based on the High Court directions, the authorities have restored the names of the petitioners in the two properties at Camurlim and Utorda.
Revenue authorities in the know informed that dozens of properties in both the North and South Goa districts were declared as enemy properties by the Custodian of Enemy Property and the owners or their heirs may get relief if they knock the doors of the High Court going by the recent court order.
In one case, the petitioner pleaded that the property in question belonged to his grandfather, and was an Indian national throughout his life.
That the name of his grandfather, which had throughout appeared in the survey records, was deleted and in his place, the name of the custodian of Enemy Property for India was found entered, came to light when he was preparing the application for mutation.
Aggrieved by the deletion, without notice or without compliance with even modicum of natural justice, the petitioner instituted the present petition, inter alia, impleading Union of India as respondent no.1 and the custodian as respondent no.2.
In reply, the respondents, Custodian of Enemy Property and the Union government, sought to justify the substitution of the entry in the survey records on the basis of an order dated 08.10.2010 issued by the Custodian purportedly under Sections 5 and 24 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 (EP Act).
The affidavit filed by the two respondents also contained a statement stating that the grandfather of the petitioner was found to be a resident of Pakistan during the crucial vesting period from 10-09-1965 to 26-09-1977 and therefore, the properties owned by him were automatically vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property.
The High Court, however, observed that the Order dated 2010 wherein it was claimed that the grandfather of the petitioner was a resident of Pakistan during the period from September 10, 1965 to September 26, 1977, was totally perverse in as much as it is based upon no material whatsoever.
The Court further observed that despite several opportunities, no record has been produced, on the basis of which the Respondents could satisfy this Court that the grandfather of the petitioner, was, in fact, a resident of Pakistan and consequently, qualified to be described as ‘enemy’ in terms of Section 2(b) of the
EP Act.
It was further observed that the respondents, the district Collector and the Salcete Mamladar, have quite candidly stated that they have no records whatsoever with regard to the service of order dated 08.10.2010 made by the Custodian, upon the occupants of the property or for that matter any other person.
“We have no hesitation in declaring the Order dated 8th October, 2010 as a nullity, or in any case, quashing and setting aside the same. We, however, clarify that this will not preclude Respondents No.1, Union of India and 2. Custodian of Enemy Property from initiating fresh proceedings in terms of the provisions of the EP Act and EP Rules, 2015 if they are satisfied that there exists any material or grounds for doing so. If any decision is taken to initiate fresh proceedings in relation to the property which is subject matter of this petition, then, needless to observe, that the Respondents will have to abide by the detailed procedure prescribed under the EP Rules, 2015, including, in particular, the procedure prescribed in Rules 3 and 4 of the EP Rules, 2015, a two Judge bench consisting of Justice M S Sonak and Justice C V Bhadang stated.
