Challenge to enemy-property vesting certificate relegated to Section 18 remedy, with eviction proceedings stayed pending decision.

The petitioner challenged an eviction notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer concerning Plot No. C-4, Khasra No. 42/1/3, and the underlying certificate declaring the property to be enemy property under the Enemy Property Act, 1968.

He alleged that the certificate had been issued without the notice and hearing required by the Enemy Property Rules, 2015, and that the eviction proceedings were therefore without jurisdiction.

The respondents opposed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had not first pursued the representation remedy under Section 18 of the Act.

The Court noted that another occupant of the same property had already filed a Section 18 representation, which was pending.

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to pursue the writ petition without first availing the representation remedy under Section 18 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968.

Whether the eviction proceedings should continue while the petitioner’s challenge to the vesting certificate is considered by the competent authority.

Section 18 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 provides a representation remedy against the relevant certificate, which the Court considered appropriate for the petitioner to pursue before seeking writ-court interference.

The Court also directed that the representation be decided on its merits, after hearing the petitioner, and not rejected on limitation grounds.

The petitioner relied on Shane Francisco Dias v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 492, and alleged breaches of Rules 3 and 4 of the Enemy Property Rules, 2015; however, the Court did not determine those contentions on their merits.

Because the eviction action was founded on the enemy-property certificate and a Section 18 representation concerning the same property was already pending, the Court considered it proper for the petitioner to pursue that statutory remedy as well.

It therefore declined to examine at that stage the petitioner’s challenges concerning notice, hearing, or the certificate’s validity.

To preserve the petitioner’s position while the representation was decided, the Court stayed the Sub-Divisional Officer’s proceedings and barred coercive action.

If filed within 15 days, the representation was to be decided by the competent authority/Central Government within a further 60 days, by a reasoned order after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing; it could not be rejected on limitation grounds.

Until that decision, the eviction proceedings were to remain in abeyance and no coercive steps could be taken.

Any adverse order was not to be given effect for seven days after it was passed.