Review disposed by granting liberty to challenge the enemy-property declaration without disturbing the judgment under review.

The writ petitioners had challenged the alleged vesting of property associated with Haji Mohd. Muslim in the Custodian of Enemy Property and questioned the validity and applicability of Rules 133(I)(1) and 133(R) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 and Rules 130 and 147 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971.

By judgment dated 10 December 2025, the Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that Haji Mohd. Muslim had migrated to Pakistan in 1964, that the property had vested in the Custodian, and that the alleged sale deed dated 20 June 1968 was prohibited by Section 6 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968.

Mohd. Rafi, who was not impleaded in the writ proceedings, filed the review petition.

He asserted that he discovered the judgment on 17 December 2025 during the hearing of his pending eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against petitioner Nos. 1 and 3.

He claimed ownership of the property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 8 September 2005 and stated that petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 were his joint tenants.

The review petitioner further alleged suppression of material documents, including orders dated 3 January 2003 passed by the Additional Rent Controller and 28 January 2003 passed by the High Court in CM(M) 68/2003, in which the Custodian of Enemy Property was impleaded.

He also asserted that he had neither been served notice of the proceedings culminating in the Custodian’s order dated 22 October 2010 declaring the property to be enemy property nor been supplied a copy of that order until 6 August 2025.

Whether the judgment dated 10 December 2025 required interference in review on the ground that a necessary and proper party, namely Mohd. Rafi, had not been impleaded or heard?

Whether the alleged suppression of the pending eviction proceedings and the judicial orders dated 3 January 2003 and 28 January 2003 justified reopening or reviewing the judgment under challenge?

Whether the review petitioner should be permitted to independently assail the Custodian’s order dated 22 October 2010 declaring the property to be enemy property?

The underlying judgment applied Section 6 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968, which prohibits an enemy, enemy subject or enemy firm from transferring property vested in the Custodian.

It also considered Rule 133(I)(1) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, defining an “enemy subject”; Rule 133(R), permitting the Central Government to declare certain transfers void; and Rules 130 and 147 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, concerning analogous definitions and transfer-related consequences.

In the review proceedings, the Court did not disturb those findings or adjudicate afresh on the validity of the vesting; instead, it granted liberty to the applicant to pursue appropriate proceedings against the Custodian’s order dated 22 October 2010.

The Court noted the review petitioner’s specific assertion that he was an affected owner and landlord, had not been impleaded in the writ proceedings, and had not received notice of the Custodian’s proceedings.

The allegations of suppression concerned documents and proceedings potentially bearing upon the property’s status and the pending eviction case, including prior orders in which the Custodian had participated.

However, rather than reassessing the original finding that the property vested in the Custodian or interfering with the judgment under review, the Court treated the grievance as capable of being pursued through appropriate proceedings directly challenging the Custodian’s order dated 22 October 2010.

Thus, the Court preserved the review petitioner’s remedy without expressing any final opinion on the merits of his title, the alleged suppression, or the validity of the enemy-property declaration.

Nevertheless, it granted Mohd. Rafi liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings challenging the Custodian’s order dated 22 October 2010, which had declared the subject property to be enemy property.

The review petition and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.