Facts
The petitioners, Indian citizens and a cooperative housing society, challenged proceedings initiated by the Central Government under the Enemy Property Act, 1968.
Source reference: no citationIn 2006, the respondents issued a notice under Section 11(1) of the Act, to which the petitioners replied, asserting they held the land on a 999-year lease executed in 1955
Source reference: p. 4, para. 4Despite this reply, the respondents issued a Certificate on 11.10.2013 declaring the property as "enemy property" vested in the Government without providing a personal hearing or communicating the certificate to the petitioners
Source reference: p. 4, para. 5Subsequently, on 04.05.2023, the respondents determined a 2/5th share of the land as enemy property and threatened the petitioners with eviction unless a Leave and License Agreement was executed
Source reference: p. 4-5, para. 6-7The petitioners approached the High Court seeking to quash these proceedings on the grounds of procedural unfairness
Source reference: p. 2-3Issues
1. Whether the impugned orders and the Certificate dated 11.10.2013 were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to the lack of personal hearing and non-consideration of the petitioners' reply
Source reference: p. 4-5, para. 6-72. Whether the proceedings under the Enemy Property Act, 1968, should be remanded for fresh consideration
Source reference: p. 5, para. 8Law Applied
The court applied the fundamental administrative law principle of Audi Alteram Partem (principles of natural justice), which requires that no person be judged unheard and that authorities must consider the defense/replies submitted by affected parties
Source reference: p. 5-6, para. 10The statutory framework involved was the Enemy Property Act, 1968, specifically Section 11 regarding the power to determine enemy property and Section 5 regarding vesting of such property in the Custodian
Source reference: p. 4, para. 4-6Reasoning
The court found that while the petitioners had responded to the initial show-cause notice in 2006, the respondents failed to grant them a personal hearing or evaluate the merits of their response—specifically the claim regarding the 1955 lease—before declaring the land enemy property
Source reference: p. 6, para. 9Upon the court's direction, the Central Government Standing Counsel verified the records and admitted that no document existed proving a personal hearing was granted, nor did the impugned orders reflect a consideration of the petitioners' defense
Source reference: p. 6, para. 9The court observed that the petitioners, who are Indian citizens, had been in possession of the land since before the Act was introduced
Source reference: p. 6, para. 10Consequently, the court reasoned that the failure to afford a hearing and the non-consideration of submitted documents rendered the entire process procedurally flawed and legally unsustainable
Source reference: p. 6, para. 11Holding
The High Court allowed the petitions and quashed the impugned order dated 04.05.2023, the Certificate dated 11.10.2013, and the order dated 29.03.2023 solely on the grounds of violation of the principles of natural justice
The court remanded the matter back to the respondent authority to be decided afresh from the stage of the 2006 show-cause notice. The petitioners were directed to file a detailed fresh reply within eight weeks, and the respondents were ordered to grant a personal hearing and pass a reasoned order considering all submissions
Source reference: p. 6-7, para. 11Original Court PDF
KAILAS COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITEDvsUNION OF INDIA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in