Delhi High Court Upholds Custodian’s Ownership of Enemy Property, Dismisses Petition

Petition challenging the vesting of property under the Enemy Property Act dismissed due to delay and lack of evidence

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has upheld the decision to vest a property located at Chatta Haji Mohd. Yusuf, Chitla Gate, Churiwalan, Delhi, in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed the writ petition filed by Ashan UR-Rab and others, challenging the orders of the Custodian and the Ministry of Home Affairs regarding the property deemed as enemy property.

The petitioners, who claimed to have been residing in the property since the early 1960s, contested the vesting order dated October 22, 2010, issued by the Custodian, which declared the property as enemy property under the Enemy Property Act, 1968. They also challenged the rejection of their representation by the Ministry of Home Affairs on September 4, 2025, which upheld the Custodian's decision.

The court noted that the property was initially owned by Sheikh Barkatullah and later sold to Haji Mohd. Muslim in 1961. However, the property was declared enemy property after Muslim migrated to Pakistan in 1964 and became a Pakistani national. A notification issued on September 10, 1965, under the Defence of India Rules, 1962, vested all properties belonging to Pakistani nationals in the Custodian.

Petitioners argued that the property was sold to Kausar Jamal in 1968, and subsequently through various sale deeds, it reached the current occupants. However, the court observed that the sale executed by a Pakistani national in 1968 was void under Section 6 of the Enemy Property Act, which prohibits the transfer of vested enemy property.

The court emphasized that the burden of proof was on the petitioners to disprove the vesting and establish ownership contrary to the presumption of ownership by the Custodian. The petitioners failed to provide evidence that Haji Mohd. Muslim held an Indian passport or was an Indian national at the time of the alleged sale.

Furthermore, the court noted that the petition challenging the 2010 order was filed after a significant delay of 15 years without any plausible explanation, making it barred by delay and latches.

The court also dismissed the challenges to the constitutional validity of certain rules under the Defence of India Rules, 1962, stating that they did not infringe upon any constitutional provisions.

The Delhi High Court's decision reaffirms the legal framework surrounding enemy properties in India and underscores the stringent requirements for challenging vesting orders under the Enemy Property Act.

Bottom Line:

Enemy Property - Property vested in Custodian under Enemy Property Act, 1968 - Burden of proof lies on claimant to disprove vesting and establish ownership contrary to presumption.

Statutory provision(s): Enemy Property Act, 1968 Sections 5, 6, 18; Defence of India Rules, 1962 Rules 133 (I)(1), 133 (R); Defence of India Rules, 1971 Rules 130, 147

Ashan UR-Rab v. CEPI, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2820228