JUDGMENT M. S. Sonak, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition was in fact tagged along with Writ Petition No.245 of 2018 and Writ Petition No. 1187 of 2018. However, Mr. Wachasundar, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that the facts in the present petition are different from the facts in Writ Petition No.245 of 2018 and Writ Petition No. 1187 of 2018. Therefore, this petition was detagged, heard separately and is now disposed of by a separate Judgment and Order. 3. This petition pertains to property bearing Survey No.4l6/4, Benaulim, Salcete, Goa admeasuring 3050 sq.mtrs. (said property). The survey records in respect of the said property reflected the name of the late husband of the petitioner namely Felipe do Rosario Fernandes. The said Felipe do Rosario Fernandes expired on 18.11.2007 and in the inventory proceedings which followed, a consent decree was drawn out, in which, the said property was allotted to the petitioner. Since the petitioner wished to reconstruct and renovate old residential house in the said property, she applied for the survey records and was alarmed to note that the name of the Custodian of Enemy Property was recorded therein by deleting the name of petitioner''s late husband namely Felipe do Rosario Fernandes. 4. The petitioner has pleaded that on account of old age her movements were severely restricted and therefore through her son she approached respondent no.4 to find out as to how the name of the Custodian appears in the survey records after deleting the name of petitioner''s late husband. The petitioner''s son was thereafter furnished copy of order dated 08.10.2010 made by the Custodian i.e. respondent no.2 purportedly under Sections 5 and 24 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 (E.P. Act). 5. The petitioner, has pleaded that no notice had ever been issued to the petitioner prior to making of the impugned order dated 08.10.2010 nor was such order served upon the petitioner. The petitioner has pleaded that neither she nor any of the other co-owners were ever granted any opportunity of hearing before the order was made. The petitioner has therefore submitted that the impugned order is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. 6. The petitioner has further pleaded that as on 10.09.1965, the petitioner''s late husband namely Felipe do Rosario Fernandes was an Indian National who was merely residing in Pakistan. The petitioner has therefore submitted that the impugned order is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. 6. The petitioner has further pleaded that as on 10.09.1965, the petitioner''s late husband namely Felipe do Rosario Fernandes was an Indian National who was merely residing in Pakistan. The petitioner has pleaded that sometime in 1963 the petitioner and her late husband, for the purpose of employment of her late husband, were at Karachi and they returned to India for good in the year 1968. The petitioner and her husband were in Pakistan for less than 5 years. The petitioner and her husband throughout continued with their Indian citizenship whilst residing in Pakistan but by way of abundant caution and to remove all doubts the petitioner and her husband were granted Indian Citizenship on 31.12.1971. The petitioner has produced on record true copies of expired Indian Passport, current Indian Passports as well as Adhar Cards. On basis of all this material, the petitioner urges that the petitioner''s late husband could never have been declared as "enemy" for the purpose of Section 2(b) of the E.P. Act. 7. Mr. J.A.Lobo, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon ruling of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangadhar Yashwant Bhandare v. Erasmo Jesus de Sequeira, (1975) 1 SCC 544 to submit that in almost similar circumstances, the Hon''ble Apex Court has negated the contention that an Indian citizen loses his citizenship or becomes an enemy by merely residing in a enemy country. 8. Mr. J.A.Lobo submits that in the present case the impugned order has been made against Felipe do Rosario Fernandes, who had already expired on 18.11.2007. he submits that the impugned order is therefore a nullity. Without prejudice Mr. J.A.Lobo submits that there was no compliance whatsoever with the principles of natural justice and fair play before the impugned order was made and this is yet another reason as to why the impugned order deserves to be declared as a nullity or in any case set aside. For all these reasons Mr. J.A.Lobo submits that the impugned order be declared as a nullity or in any case set aside. 9. Mr. For all these reasons Mr. J.A.Lobo submits that the impugned order be declared as a nullity or in any case set aside. 9. Mr. Wachasundar, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that in this case there is material on record, which is not even disputed by the petitioner that for the period between 1963 and 1968, petitioner''s late husband was residing at Karachi in Pakistan. He submits that this admission is sufficient to conclude that the petitioner''s late husband was indeed an enemy as defined under Section 2(b) of the E.P. Act. He submits that once this judicial fact is established, the vesting of the property in Custodian is almost automatic and there is no question of any compliance with principles of natural justice in such matters. He therefore submits that there is no case made out to interfere with the impugned order. 10. In the separate Judgment and Order made in Writ Petitions No.245 of 2018 and No. 1187 of 2018, we have held that in such matters, the Custodian, is required to comply with principles of natural justice and fair play. Merely on the basis that there is some material that for some time the petitioner''s husband or for that matter the petitioner, have been residing at Karachi in Pakistan, the Custodian cannot, conclude that the petitioner''s late husband has become an enemy as defined under Section 2(b) of the said Act. The E.P. Rules, 2015 provide a detailed procedure for identifying properties held by enemies and for declaration of properties as Enemy Properties. These Rules provide for compliance with principles of natural justice and fair play. Even prior to the coming into force of the said Rules, Mr. Wachasundar was not able to show to us that the applicability of principles of natural justice and fair play were excluded either expressly or by implication. Therefore, in the said separate Judgment and Order we have held that the principles of natural justice will apply and will have to be followed before orders of the nature of the impugned order are made by the Custodian. 11. Since, we do not propose to go into the merits of the matter, there is really no occasion for considering Mr. J.A.Lobo''s contention based upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the said of Eras/no Sequeira (supra). 11. Since, we do not propose to go into the merits of the matter, there is really no occasion for considering Mr. J.A.Lobo''s contention based upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the said of Eras/no Sequeira (supra). We are satisfied that in the present case, the impugned order was made against a dead person and is therefore a nullity. In any case, the impugned order was not even communicated to the petitioner and therefore, the same could never have been acted upon by the respondents. In any case, we are satisfied that the impugned order was made in gross breach of the principles of natural justice and fair play and therefore, the same deserves to be set aside on the said ground as well. 12. Therefore, by adopting the reasoning in out separate Judgment and Order made in Writ Petitions No.245 of 2018 and No. 1187 of 2018 and applying such reasoning to the facts of the present case, we set aside the impugned order dated 08.10.2010 and direct the respondents to restore the name of petitioner''s late husband in the survey records relating to the property bearing Survey No.416/4, Benaulim, Salcete, Goa. 13. We however make it clear that the declaration of the impugned order dated 08.10.2010 as a nullity or setting aside of the same will not preclude respondents no.l and 2 from initiating fresh proceedings in terms of the provisions of E.P. Act and E.P. Rules, 2015, if, they are satisfied that there exists any material or grounds for doing so. If any decision is taken to initiate fresh proceedings in relation to the property which is subject matter of this petition, then, needless to observe, that the respondents, will have to abide by the detailed procedure prescribed under E.P. Rules, 2015, including in particular the procedure prescribed in rules 3 and 4 of the E.P. Rules, 2015. 14. If any decision is taken to initiate fresh proceedings in relation to the property which is subject matter of this petition, then, needless to observe, that the respondents, will have to abide by the detailed procedure prescribed under E.P. Rules, 2015, including in particular the procedure prescribed in rules 3 and 4 of the E.P. Rules, 2015. 14. Accordingly, we dispose of this Petition by making the following order: (a) Impugned order dated 08.10.2010 made by the Custodian of Enemy Property of India at Exhibit P(12) (page 42) is hereby quashed and set aside; (b) The respondents are directed to restore the name of Felipe do Rosario Fernandes in the survey records relating to property bearing Survey No.416/4 at Benaulim, Salcete, Goa within a period of four weeks from today; (c) We grant liberty to the respondents to take fresh steps in relation to the property which is subject matter of the present petition in terms of E.P. Act, 1968 and E.P. Rules, 2015 should, in the opinion of the respondents, there exist grounds for taking such steps; (d) There shall be no order for costs.