JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Shyam Mohan learned counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Solicitor General of India Shri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Raman Pandey for opposite party no.1 while the notices have been received on behalf of the opposite parties no.2 to 4 by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioner by means of the present petition has prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 17.07.2020 and 14.08.2020, passed by the respondent no.1 and respondent no.3 as contained in Annexure No.1 & Annexure No.2, order dated 13.02.2020 passed by the respondent no.2 as well as order dated 18.01.1975, passed by the respondent no.1, contained Annexure No.3 & 4 to the writ petition respectively. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to proceed in pursuance of the aforesaid impugned orders. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the property in question which is being treated as an enemy property by the respondent no.1 actually belonged one Jafar Hasan, son of Muzaffar Ali who is the real uncle of the present petitioner. It has been submitted that Jafar Hasan alongwith other co-sharers which included the father of the present petitioner amongst other were the joint tenure holders of Khasra Nos.1106, 1130, 1268, 826, 827, 1037, 1048, 1097, 1102, 1103, 1137, 1138, 1153, 1165, 1174, 1175, 1192, 1216 and 1218. Jafar Hasan had executed a Will on 01.10.1970 in favour of the petitioner (real nephew) and upon the death of Jafar Hasan on 20.06.1974 his shares devolved on the petitioner and moreover the name of the petitioner was also mutated and he continued to remain in possession of the property in question. 4. It has been submitted that Jafar Hasan had never migrated to Pakistan and he continued to have his 1/6th share in the property in question which after his death came in the hands of the petitioner. 4. It has been submitted that Jafar Hasan had never migrated to Pakistan and he continued to have his 1/6th share in the property in question which after his death came in the hands of the petitioner. It has further been mentioned that earlier the other co-sharers which included the father of the petitioner had instituted writ petition before a Division Bench of this Court bearing Writ Petition No.2394 of 1976 wherein by means of order and judgment dated 07.11.1979 the writ petition was partly allowed restraining the opposite parties from dispossessing the petitioners from the plots mentioned in the document of declaration issued by the custodian enemy property and which plots are in actual possession of the petitioner. 5. It has further been urged by Shri Shyam Mohan that despite the aforesaid order the respondents did not make any effort to partition or demarcate the shares and once again in the year 2001 attempted to auction the land in question which was in the possession of the present petitioner with a standing crop thereon which prompted the petitioner to institute another writ petition before this Court bearing No.1534 (M/S) of 2001. 6. It has further been submitted that in the aforesaid writ petition an interim order was passed that the crop shall not be auctioned and the aforesaid writ petition is pending till date. 7. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the respondent no.1 has issued the impugned orders dated 17.07.2020, 14.08.2020 and 13.02.2020 and while assailing the aforesaid three orders the petitioner now challenges the authorization order passed under Section 8 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 dated 18th of January, 1975. 8. It has been urged that the aforesaid orders are bad in the eyes of law; inasmuch as Jafar Hasan the predecessor in interest of the present petitioner had never migrated to Pakistan and as such the property could not be treated as enemy property and by passing the impugned orders the respondents are presupposing and treating the property to be enemy property despite the fact that the matter was already resolved by a Division Bench of this Court by means of judgment and order dated 07.11.1979 in writ petition No.2394 of 1976. 9. The Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. The Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, on the perusal of the record it indicates that it is incorrect to state that Jafar Hasan was not a pakistani national or that his property was not treated as an enemy property. 10. From the perusal of the judgment and order dated 07.11.1979 passed in writ petition No.2394 of 1979, it would be clear that the Division Bench noticing the claim of the petitioners in the said writ petition clearly recorded the fact that Maqbool Hasan and Jafar Hasan were pakistani nationals. The order dated 07.11.1979 clearly indicated the fact that since Maqbool Hasan and Jafar Hasan who were real brothers had migrated to Pakistan and being Pakistani nationals their property was incorporated in Schedule-II of the Declaration dated 10th of September, 1965. Even the said property was mentioned in the authorization issued under Section 8 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968. Significantly, the said order, said authorization issued on 18th of January 1975 was very well in the knowledge of the father of the petitioner Mansoor Hasan who was the petitioner no.1 in the writ petition No.2394 of 1976 alongwith the other co-sharers and who clearly had taken a stand that the other brothers, namely Jafar Hasan and Maqbool Hasan were Pakistani nationals and in the aforesaid circumstances, the Division Bench by means of order dated 07.11.1979 had passed the order which reads as under:- "The petitioners claim to be co-shares in certain property along with Maqbool Hasan and Jafar Hasan, who are Pakistani Nationals, and whose property has under Government of India Notification dated 10th September, 1965, been treated an enemy property and vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property. An order of Authorization under Section 8 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 has been issued by the Custodian of Enemy Property, where under the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has been authorized to take such measures as he may consider necessary or expedient for the preservation and management of the Enemy Property specified in the Schedule. This order is Annexure -2 to the petition. The petitioners do not dispute (except to the extent the will precisely clarify) that the said Maqbool Hasan and Jafar Hasan have in that property the shares specified in the order, annexure-2. This order is Annexure -2 to the petition. The petitioners do not dispute (except to the extent the will precisely clarify) that the said Maqbool Hasan and Jafar Hasan have in that property the shares specified in the order, annexure-2. This order shows that in one plot Maqbool Hasan has 1/9 share, while in two others he has 2/9 share, and Jafar Hasan has 1/9 share in three plots. There is only one plot in annexure -2 of which Jafar Hasan has been shown exclusive owner, i.e., plot No.56. As regards this plot, the case of the petitioners is that the plot was ancestral, in which Jafar Hasan was only a co-sharer, and further that the plot comprises a grove which was planted by the petitioner No.1 and as such, the name is in his exclusive possession. So far as plots, which according to the order, annexure -2 and also according to the petitioners' own case, are jointly owned by one or more of the petitioners and the Pakistani Nationals, are concerned, It is obvious that if the petitioners as co-sharers are in actual possession, then the Custodian of the Enemy Property stepping into the shoes of the said Pakistani Nationals cannot have any right of dispossessing the petitioners. He can claim a right of getting the property partitioned or to claim his share in profits, but he cannot dispossess the petitioners so long as jointness continues. As regards plot No.56, the facts appear to be in dispute. We do not have before us the original notification of vesting that may have been issued under the Defence of India Rules, 1962. Even annexure-2 has not been sought to be quashed. We therefore express no opinion on the merits of the case set up by petitioner No.1 with respect to plot No.56. It will be open to the said petitioner and to the Custodian to have the matter resolved through appropriate proceedings. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part and the opposite parties are restrained from dispossessing the petitioners from plots mentioned in annexure -2 in which the Pakistani Nationals have only a share and which plots are in actual possession of the petitioners. It shall, however, be open to the opposite parties to take other proceedings in regard to those plots as indicted above. No order as to costs." 11. It shall, however, be open to the opposite parties to take other proceedings in regard to those plots as indicted above. No order as to costs." 11. It will be significant to notice that the name of the present petitioner is on the basis of an alleged unregistered Will said to have been executed by Jafar Hasan who is said to have died on 20.06.1974. The fact remains that when the petitioner's father, namely, Mansoor Hasan alongwith the other co-sharers had instituted the writ petition in the year 1976 which came to be decided in the year 1979. There was never any claim or even vague whisper that Jafar Hasan had not migrated to Pakistan, or that he had died and had left his Will by virtue of which the present petitioner who is the son of Mansoor Hasan (Mansoor Hasan petitioner no.1 in writ petition No.2394 of 1976). Even in the earlier writ petition, both the notifications dated 10th of September, 1965 as well as the authorization order passed under Section 8 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 dated 18th of January, 1975 was in the knowledge of the parties yet there was never any challenge thereto. Now for the first time, the petitioner is assailing the authorization order under Section 8 dated 18th of January, 1975. 12. The submission of Shri Shyam Mohan that the said order was not in notice is also not tenable coupled with the fact that despite a challenge having been raised to the authorization order without challenging the initial order passed on 10th of September, 1975 by virtue of which the immovable properties of Jafar Hasan vested with the custodian, the challenge to Section 8 authorization order pales into insignificance. 13. At this juncture, it will be apposite to notice Section 8 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 which reads as under:- "8. 13. At this juncture, it will be apposite to notice Section 8 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 which reads as under:- "8. Power of Custodian in respect of enemy property vested in him.- 1[(1) With respect to the property vested in the Custodian under this Act, the Custodian may take or authorise the taking of such measures as he considers necessary or expedient for preserving such property till it is disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Act.] (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the Custodian or such person as may be specifically authorised by him in this behalf, may, for the said purpose,- (i) carry on the business of the enemy; 2[(ia) fix and collect the rent, standard rent, lease rent, licence fee or usage charges, as the case may be, in respect of enemy property;] (ii) take action for recovering any money due to the enemy; (iii) make any contract and execute any document in the name and on behalf of the enemy; (iv) institute, defend or continue any suit or other legal proceeding, refer any dispute to arbitration and compromise any debts, claims or liabilities; 2[(iva) secure vacant possession of the enemy property by evicting the unauthorised or illegal occupant or trespasser and remove unauthorised or illegal constructions, if any]. (v) raise on the security of the property such loans as may be necessary; (vi) incur out of the property any expenditure including the payment of any taxes, duties, cesses and rates to Government or to any local authority and of any wages, salaries, pensions, provident fund contributions to, or in respect of, any employee of the enemy and the repayment of any debts due by the enemy to persons other than enemies; (vii) transfer by way of sale, mortgage or lease or otherwise dispose of any of the properties; (viii) invest any moneys held by him on behalf of enemies for the purchase of Treasury Bills or such other Government securities as may be approved by the Central Government for the purpose; (ix) make payments to the enemy and his dependents; (x) make payments on behalf of the enemy to persons other than those who are enemies, of dues outstanding on the 25th October, 1962 3[or on the 3rd December, 1971]; and (xi) make such other payments out of the funds of the enemy as may be directed by the Central Government. Explanation.-In this sub-section and in sections 10 and 17, “enemy” includes an enemy subject and an enemy firm. From the perusal of the aforesaid Section, it would indicate that the aforesaid Section only authorizes the custodian to takes such measures as he considers necessary or expedient for preserving the property. The important section by virtue of which property vests in the custodian is under Section 5 which reads as under:- "5. Property vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India under the Defence of India Rules, 1962, and the Defence of India Rules, 1971 to continue to vest in Custodian.-4[(1)] Notwithstanding the expiration of the Defence of India Act, 1962 (51 of 1962), and the Defence of India Rules, 1962, all enemy property vested before such expiration in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India appointed under the said Rules and continuing to vest in him immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall, as from such commencement, vest in the Custodian. (2) Notwithstanding the expiration of the Defence of India Act, 1971 (42 of 1971) and the Defence of India Rules, 1971, all enemy property vested before such expiration in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India appointed under the said Rules and continuing to vest in him immediately before the commencement of the Enemy Property, (Amendment) Act, 1977 (40 of 1977) shall, as from such commencement, vest in the Custodian.] (3) The enemy property vested in the Custodian shall, notwithstanding that the enemy or the enemy subject or the enemy firm has ceased to be an enemy due to death, extinction, winding up of business or change of nationality or that the legal heir and successor is a citizen of India or the citizen of a country which is not an enemy, continue to remain, save as otherwise provided in this Act, vested in the Custodian. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, "enemy property vested in the Custodian" shall include and shall always be deemed to have been included all rights, titles, and interest in, or any benefit arising out of, such property vested in him under this Act.] 14. Thus, from the conjoint reading of the aforesaid two sections, it would indicate that there has never been any challenge to the order passed under Section 5 dated 10th of September, 1965 by which the immovable property of Jafar Hasan and Maqbool Hasan vested with the custodian. Even in the instant petition, the petitioner has raised a feeble challenge to the authorization order dated 18th of January, 1975. However, there is yet no challenge to the vesting order dated 10th of September, 1965. 15. In the aforesaid backdrop, where the fact that neither the father of the petitioner nor the concerned person Jafar Hasan,, who was admittedly alive till 1974, never assailed the vesting order and moreover his other real brother and co-sharers also stated before the High Court that Jafar Hasan and his other real brother Maqbool Hasan were Pakistani nationals and under the aforesaid circumstances, the earlier Division Bench had passed the order dated 07.11.1979. 16. In light of the aforesaid order, which has been relied upon by the petitioner himself, while filing other writ petition bearing No.1534 (M/S) of 2001, the fact remains that it is now not open for the petitioner to assail the aforesaid orders. 16. In light of the aforesaid order, which has been relied upon by the petitioner himself, while filing other writ petition bearing No.1534 (M/S) of 2001, the fact remains that it is now not open for the petitioner to assail the aforesaid orders. Moreover, under the Enemy Property Act, there is a complete procedure which has been provided regarding assailing the order of vesting of property in terms of Section 18 of the Act which has further been made appealable in terms of Section 18-C of the said Act. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not merit consideration and even otherwise the orders dated 17.07.2020, 14.08.2020 and 13.02.2020 are merely consequential orders. 18. The petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed, however, there shall be no order as to costs. 19. In view of the aforesaid, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not have merit. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.