Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 142 (ALL)

JEET SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-01-12

ARUN TANDON, HARSH KUMAR

body2016
JUDGMENT By the Court.—This writ petition has been filed with following reliefs : “(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 3 to expunge the name of Custodian of Enemy Property for India and restore the name of petitioners in the revenue records as Bhumidhar. In pursuance of the order of the Custodian of Enemy Property dated 28.4.2015 and dated 11.10.2015. (II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 3 to decide the representations dated 26.8.2015 and 18.9.2015 in accordance with orders of the Custodian of Enemy Property dated 28.4.2015 and 11.10.2015.” 2. There are serious issues of title raised by means of the present writ petition. The records reflect that the disputed property is stated to have been sold by one Iqtrab Ali Khan, through a registered sale-deed in favour of Abhay Ram Singh and others in the year 1968 for Rs. 48,000/- and Sri Abhay Ram Singh and others sold the property in favour of petitioners vide sale dated 9.3.1971 for Rs. 75,000/-. 3. The Custodian of Enemy Property raised an issue with regards to the property being an enemy property and, therefore, the Custodian alone being competent to manage the same. A notice dated 10.3.1973 was issued by the Custodian of Enemy Property requiring Iqtrab Ali Khan to deposit Rs. 48,000/- and Abhay Ram who sold it for Rs. 75,000/- to deposit Rs. 27,000/- total Rs. 75,000/-. 4. Aggrieved by the said notice, Sri Abhay Ram Singh preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1974 “Aman Singh and others v. Custodian Enemy Property”. While the writ petition was pending a letter dated 24.8.1974 is said to have been written to Senior Standing Counsel, Central Government, Allahabad by the Custodian for dropping the demand of Rs. 27,000/- against Aman Singh and Abhay Ram. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of. What has been the exact order of the High Court is not known nor it has been made a part of the present writ petition. 5. Sri Iqtrab Ali Khan deposited a sum of Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 8,000/- total Rs. 20,000/- before he expired on 19.12.1991, leaving behind a liability of Rs. 28,000/- to be deposited. What has been the exact order of the High Court is not known nor it has been made a part of the present writ petition. 5. Sri Iqtrab Ali Khan deposited a sum of Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 8,000/- total Rs. 20,000/- before he expired on 19.12.1991, leaving behind a liability of Rs. 28,000/- to be deposited. Asmat Ali, the son of Iqtrab Ali Khan made an application before the Custodian, Enemy Property on 24.2.2015 to the effect that as per the last wish of his father, he would clear the liability of balance amount of Rs. 28,000/- and no dues certificate be issued accordingly in respect of the property in question. 6. In response to this request, the Custodian of Enemy Property for India is stated to have made two options under letter dated 24.3.2015 (a) that since the period of limitation for recovery of possession and annulment of the same has expired, the amount be recovered alongwith interest for the period even prior to coming into force of the Act and a demand note asking total amount payable alongwith interest be computed to be raised against the applicant, and by means of option (b) it was suggested that the balance consideration of Rs. 28,000/- with 18% interest be paid through bank draft drawn in favour of Custodian of Enemy Property for India payable at Mumbai within 30 days of the receipt of this letter. This letter was addressed to Mr. Asmat Ali Khan. A sum of Rs. 20,07,571/- is stated to have been deposited by Asmat Ali Khan with the Custodian of Enemy Property through bank draft dated 4.4.2015. During all this period, name of the Custodian of Enemy Property continued to be recorded in the Khatauni. 7. It is the case of the petitioners that a sum of Rs. 20,07,571/- has been paid by them to Asmat Ali Khan, therefore, their names should be recorded in the revenue records. Reference is made to the letter of the District Magistrate asking Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dadari to obtain an opinion from D.G.C. (Civil) on the representation, which had been made to the Custodian, Enemy Property. Reference is also made to the letters of Custodian, Enemy Property dated 28.4.2015 and dated 11.10.2015. 8. Reference is made to the letter of the District Magistrate asking Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dadari to obtain an opinion from D.G.C. (Civil) on the representation, which had been made to the Custodian, Enemy Property. Reference is also made to the letters of Custodian, Enemy Property dated 28.4.2015 and dated 11.10.2015. 8. The representation dated 24.2.2015 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) records that the petitioners had purchased the land in question through a registered sale-deed dated 9.3.1971 from Aman Singh and Abhay Ram, but the sale-deed has not been filed. From para 4 of the representation dated 24.2.2015 of Asmat Ali (Annexure-3), it appears that Abhay Ram and others had further sold the property to Ziley Singh and others. Ziley Singh is not one of the petitioners. The amount of Rs. 20,07,571/- assessed by Custodian of Enemy Property through Annexure-4 was deposited by Asmat Ali Khan through two bank drafts (page 29) and receipts at pages 30 and 31. There is nothing on record to show that the revisionists are subsequent purchasers or they deposited any amount in furtherance of Annexure-4 so as to claim right or interest therein.It is also to be seen as to how the Custodian can accept a private sale in respect of enemy property of which he is the Custodian on behalf of the State. Neither Asmat Ali nor Ziley Singh have been made a party in this petition. 9. In our opinion, issues of title/transfer of title are involved. Such issues need examination of documentary as well as oral evidence before any mutation can be directed, as has been prayed for in the present writ petition. Writ is not the proper remedy. Petitioners may file a declaratory suit before competent Court. 10. The writ petition is dismissed. ——————