Declaration of Property as Enemy Property Void Without Strict Adherence to Prescribed Statutory Inquiry and Principles of Natural Justice

The petitioners claimed absolute ownership of three properties in Ahata Kaley Sahib, Delhi, supported by a chain of title documents.

Seeking clarification on title doubts, they received a letter dated 09.03.2021 from the Custodian of Enemy Property for India stating that the properties were declared "enemy properties".

Subsequently, a D.O. letter dated 07.09.2018 requested the Additional District Magistrate to take over control of these properties for management.

The petitioners challenged these orders, asserting that the properties were self-acquired/registered and that the respondents lacked records to justify the declaration.

The respondents' counter-affidavit admitted they were still in the process of collecting documents to verify the status of the properties.

1. Whether the respondents followed the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Enemy Property Act, 1968, and the Enemy Property Rules, 2015, before declaring the petitioners' properties as enemy properties.

2. Whether the impugned communications declaring the properties as enemy property can be sustained in the absence of a show-cause notice and physical verification.

The court primarily applied the Enemy Property Act, 1968 and Rules 3 and 4 of the Enemy Property Rules, 2015.

These rules mandate a specific procedure: identifying the property with the assistance of District Authorities, carrying out physical verification of revenue and municipal records [Rule 3(1)-(5)], issuing a show-cause notice in Form-I describing the grounds for the declaration [Rule 3(7)], and observing principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity for a hearing [Rule 3(9)].

The court also relied on the precedent of Nafis-Ul-Afiin v. Union of India (2025), which held that failure to follow this statutory procedure vitiates the declaration.

The court found that the respondents were not fully certain of the status of the subject properties, as evidenced by their own internal correspondence seeking information from the ADM (Central) after the litigation commenced.

The court reasoned that a property cannot be claimed as "enemy property" unless a definite conclusion is reached following due process of law.

Upon reviewing the record, the court noted that no show-cause notice specifying the grounds or applicable legal provisions had been issued as required by Rule 3(7).

Furthermore, the respondents conceded that the detailed procedure involving physical inspection, verification of municipal records, and the submission of a formal recommendation report by an authorized representative had been bypassed.

Since the mandatory procedural safeguards designed to protect the rights of citizens were ignored, the impugned actions were deemed legally unsustainable.

The court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned communications dated 07.09.2018 and 09.03.2021 and granted the respondents liberty to undertake the necessary exercise afresh, provided it is conducted strictly in accordance with the Enemy Property Act, 1968, and the Rules of 1962 and 2015.