Mst Naima Khatoon & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6946/2021, CM APPL. 21922/2021, CM APPL.
66876/2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
Date of Decision: 29.04.2026
MST NAIMA KHATOON & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja and Mr. Saubhagya
Chauriha, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Nishant Gautam CGSC Ms.
Kavya Shukla, Mr. Vineet Negi, Mr.
Vibhav V. Nath Advocates for R-1
and 2.
Mr. Tushar Sannu and Mr. Parvin
Bansal, Advocates for GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition assails the order dated 09.03.2021 and D.O. dated
07.09.2018 passed by Custodian of Enemy Property for India, whereby,
some of the properties of the petitioners were declared as enemy properties
under the provisions of Enemy Property Act, 1968.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.05.2026
20:08:02
Page 1 of 8
2. The petitioners, thus, contend that they are the absolute owners of
following three properties i.e. (i) Property No. 2128 (New), 1053 (Old),
Ward No. VI, Ahata Kaley Sahib, Qasim Jan Street, Delhi - 110006, (ii)
Property No. 2142 (New), Ward No. VI, Ahata Kaley Sahib, Qasim Jan
Street, Delhi - 110006 and; (iii) Property No. 2176 (New), Ward No. VI,
Ahata Kaley Sahib, Qasim Jan Street, Delhi – 110006.
3. It is the case of the petitioners, that they have the full chain of
documents to demonstrate their ownership, title and possession. It is,
however, contented that certain obstructions or doubts were being raised
regarding the title of the properties and hence a position was sought to be
clarified from the concerned Custodian of the Enemy Properties.
4. Pursuant, thereto, the office of Custodian of the Enemy Properties
vide a letter dated 09.03.2021, indicated one of the petitioners that as per the
available record, all the properties in question are declared as enemy
properties.
5. Thereafter, vide letter dated 07.09.2018 issued by the Custodian of
Enemy Properties, respondent no. 3 – Additional District Magistrate was
informed that various properties including the petitioners’ properties have
been declared as enemy properties. Further a request was made to take over
the control of these properties for preservation and management purpose
along with a notice for notifying that the enemy property was also liable to
be displayed.
6. Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners submits that there is no
record, whatsoever, available with the respondents to justify the said
position. Further the provisions of the Enemies Properties Act, 1968,
nowhere entitles the respondents to immediately place any of the self-
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.05.2026
20:08:02
Page 2 of 8
acquired property/registered property of any citizen in the list of enemy
properties.
7. Vide order dated 23.07.2021 this Court in the instant petition had
directed for issuance of notice to the respondents along with directions to
file counter affidavit, precisely, setting out the procedure followed by them
while passing the impugned notices. The respondents have filed their reply.
8. A perusal of the entire reply nowhere justifies as to on what basis the
petitioners’ properties have been treated to be the enemy properties.
9. Notably, it is not the respondents’ case that the petitioners’ property
were already declared or deemed to be the enemy properties under the
provisions of the Enemies Properties Act, 1968 read with Defence of India
Rules 1962 (hereinafter “Rules 1962” ). Neither the respondents, would be
able to place any justification on record, whereby, following the procedure
as contemplated under the Enemies Properties Act, 1968 or Rules 1962
thereunder, any action has been taken to declare the properties as enemy
properties.
10. Rather in paragraph number 7 of the short affidavit dated 14.12.2021,
certain statements have been made, indicating that some efforts were made
to collect the documents with respect to petitioners’ properties and further to
undertake the necessary exercise. Paragraph No. 7 of the short affidavit is
extracted as under:
That pursuant to filing of the present writ petition, a letter dated
01.12.20121 was issued to the ADM, Central for providing the
relevant information/documents in respect of the subject Enemy
Properties. However, till date no response has been provided by
the ADM, Central. Therefore, in the interest of justice and
without prejudice to the stand taken by Respondent No.1 and 2 in
the present Short Counter Affidavit, Respondents seeks some time
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.05.2026
20:08:02
Page 3 of 8
to submit a detailed Counter Affidavit so as to counter the stand
taken by the Petitioners in their Writ Petition. Copy of the letter
dated 01.12.2021 issued to ADM (Central) is annexed as
Annexure CA-4.
11. A perusal of the aforesaid extracted reply, if, is considered in right
perspective would clearly indicate that the respondents, themselves, are not
fully aware regarding correct status of the petitioners’ properties as to
whether the same are the enemy properties or otherwise.
12. Unless the respondents had arrived at definite conclusion after
following the due process of law, there could not have been any intimation
to claim that the petitioners’ properties are enemy property. Even otherwise,
the declaration of enemy properties seems to be an ongoing exercise.
13. For that purpose, as well, the procedure as contemplated, under Rule 3
and 4 of Enemy property Rules, 2015 (hereinafter “Rules 2015” ), should
have been followed.
1
14. This Court, in a batch of writ petitions has taken note of the aforesaid
position. Para 13 to 19 of the said decisions is extracted as under:
“ 13. An elaborate procedure is described in Rule 3, by which firstly the
Custodian is required to take assistance of the District Authority in
identifying the property. Thereafter, the Custodian may direct the District
Authority to carry out a physical inspection and verification. For this
purpose, the Revenue and Municipal records shall also be checked. Once
the verification is carried out and the District Authority is, prima facie,
satisfied that the property or interest therein is enemy property, the
Custodian is required to issue a show cause notice in Form-I to the person
claiming title to such property or to any other person or persons whom he
considered to be interested in the enemy property. The said notice is also
required to mention the grounds on which the property is sought to be
declared as enemy property and is also required to specify the provisions
of the Act under which the property is alleged to be the enemy property.
1
W.P.(C)5717/2015 and W.P.(C) 9196/2018 vide order dated 13.01.2025
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.05.2026
20:08:02
Page 4 of 8
13.1 In terms of Rule 3(9) of the said Rules, the Custodian or his
authorised representative is obliged to observe the principles of natural
justice by giving sufficient opportunity to the noticee to present their case
or to hear them or their representative. Rule 3(10) of the said Rules
requires that the party to whom notice has been served in terms of Rule
3(6) of the Rules be called upon to show cause why the subject property
should not be declared as an enemy property.
13.2 Rule 3(13) of the Rules set out that the authorised representative of
the Custodian is required to prepare a detailed report of all cases
identified as enemy property and to submit the same to the Custodian
along with his recommendations.
13.3 Once the report under Rule 3(13) of the Rules is prepared, the
Custodian is required to examine the same, and if necessary, he can also
call for further investigation to be conducted. If upon such investigation
and examination, the Custodian is satisfied that the property is enemy
property, a certificate in Form II declaring the subject property to be
enemy property along with authorisation order in Form III authorising the
District Authority to take over the property on his behalf are to be issued.
14. As stated above, no show-cause notice as is requisite under Rule 3(7)
of the Rules has been issued specifying the grounds and applicable
provisions of the Act. In addition, concededly the detailed procedure as
has been set out above under Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules has not been
followed by the Respondents.
15. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment in Naima Khatoon
case had found that where the procedure under Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules
had not been followed, and thus, the notice and the certificate could not be
sustained. The relevant extract of the judgment in Naima Khatoon case is
below:
“23. Admittedly, the aforesaid procedure has not been followed.
Further, it is also not disputed that the order approving the
decision to vest the property was taken by the Custodian on
26.08.2015, that is, after the Rules had come into force.
24. In view of the above, the decision to declare the property as an
enemy property and the consequent Certificate 09.09.2015 issued
under Section 12 of the Act cannot be sustained. Consequently,
the impugned notice to the tenants of the property, which are
premised on the basis that the property is an enemy property,
cannot be sustained.” [Emphasis supplied]
16. The facts in the present case also shows that no notice as was required
to be issued under Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules was issued with respect to
the subject property. Thus, the procedure as is envisaged under Rules 3
and 4 of the Rules was not followed at the time of issuing the Impugned
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.05.2026
20:08:02
Page 5 of 8
Notice or the Impugned Certificate.
17. The Impugned Notice and the Impugned Certificate are accordingly
set aside.
18. The Petitions are allowed. Pending Applications stand closed.
19. It is clarified that the order passed today does not preclude
Respondent No.2 from taking appropriate proceedings in accordance with
law against the Petitioner. All rights and contentions of the parties are left
open.”
15. Similar position has been taken by this Court in Shipra Sharma &
2
Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. . In paragraph nos. 9 to 11 therein, the Court
has held as under:
“ 9. During the course of hearing, it transpires that the said order was
passed without giving a notice to the petitioners or affording an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Reliance has also been placed on
Nafis-UlAfiin v. Union of India and Anr. 2025: DHC:619.
10. Relevant portion of Nafis-Ul-Afiin (supra) is reproduced as under –
13. An elaborate procedure is described in Rule 3, by which firstly
the Custodian is required to take assistance of the District
Authority in identifying the property. Thereafter, the Custodian
may direct the District Authority to carry out a physical inspection
and verification. For this purpose, the Revenue and Municipal
records shall also be checked. Once the verification is carried out
and the District Authority is, prima facie, satisfied that the
property or interest therein is enemy property, the Custodian is
required to issue a show cause notice in Form-I to the person
claiming title to such property or to any other person or persons
whom he considered to be interested in the enemy property. The
said notice is also required to mention the grounds on which the
property is sought to be declared as enemy property and is also
required to specify the provisions of the Act under which the
property is alleged to be the enemy property.
13.1 In terms of Rule 3(9) of the said Rules, the Custodian or his
authorised representative is obliged to observe the principles of
natural justice by giving sufficient opportunity to the noticee to
present their case or to hear them or their representative. Rule
3(10) of the said Rules requires that the party to whom notice has
been served in terms of Rule 3(6) of the Rules be called upon to
2
W.P. (C) 16165/2022 vide Order dated 16.05.2026
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.05.2026
20:08:02
Page 6 of 8
show cause why the subject property should not be declared as an
enemy property.
13.2 Rule 3(13) of the Rules set out that the authorised
representative of the Custodian is required to prepare a detailed
report of all cases identified as enemy property and to submit the
same to the Custodian alongwith his recommendations.
13.3 Once the report under Rule 3(13) of the Rules is prepared, the
Custodian is required to examine the same, and if necessary, he
can also call for further investigation to be conducted. If upon
such investigation and examination, the Custodian is satisfied that
the property is enemy property, a certificate in Form II declaring
the subject property to be enemy property alongwith authorisation
order in Form III authorising the District Authority to take over
the property on his behalf are to be issued.
14. As stated above, no show-cause notice as is requisite under
Rule 3(7) of the Rules has been issued specifying the grounds and
applicable provisions of the Act. In addition, concededly the
detailed procedure as has been set out above under Rules 3 and 4
of the Rules has not been followed by the Respondents.
15. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment in Naima
Khatoon case had found that where the procedure under Rules 3
and 4 of the Rules had not been followed, and thus, the notice and
the certificate could not be sustained. The relevant extract of the
judgment in Naima Khatoon case is below:
“23. Admittedly, the aforesaid procedure has not been
followed. Further, it is also not disputed that the order
approving the decision to vest the property was taken by
the Custodian on 26.08.2015, that is, after the Rules had
come into force.
24. In view of the above, the decision to declare the
property as an enemy property and the consequent
Certificate 09.09.2015 issued under Section 12 of the Act
cannot be sustained. Consequently, the impugned notice
to the tenants of the property, which are premised on the
basis that the property is an enemy property, cannot be
sustained [Emphasis supplied] .”
16. The facts in the present case also shows that no notice as was
required to be issued under Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules was issued
with respect to the subject property. Thus, the procedure as is
envisaged under Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules was not followed at the
time of issuing the Impugned Notice or the Impugned Certificate.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.05.2026
20:08:02
Page 7 of 8
17. The Impugned Notice and the Impugned Certificate are
accordingly set aside.
11. In the circumstances, considering that no prior intimation/notice was
provided to the petitioners before passing the order dated 15.11.2022, the
same is set aside, while granting liberty to the respondents to issue an
appropriate Show Cause Notice (SCN) to the petitioners. All rights and
contentions of the parties are left open.”
16. In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds that the impugned
communication dated 07.09.2018 and 19.03.2021 would not sustain and are,
hereby, set aside.
17. The respondents, however, shall be at liberty to undertake the
necessary exercise, if the same is required, in accordance with the provisions
of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 read with the Rules 1962 and Rules 2015
made thereunder.
18. With these observations. the petition along with the pending
application stands disposed of.
(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
APRIL 29, 2026
AR/ss
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.05.2026
20:08:02
Page 8 of 8