ORDER : 1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh and Amit Gupta, learned counsels for petitioner and Ms. T.J. Monir for respondents. 2. Petitioner is an educational institution which claims to have purchased land in question from its alleged owner Kallan vide registered sale deed dated 17.03.1950, of plot No. 1236. It is claimed that the institution is continuing in possession over it for the last more than 70 years. It is aggrieved by an order passed by the Custodian of Enemy Property, dated 02.03.2010, declaring the land in question to be enemy property at the hands of one Aisha Begum primarily on the ground that similar land was declared as enemy property in 1974. 3. The order of Custodian of Enemy Property is assailed primarily on the ground that it proceeded on wrong factual premise that the property belongs to Aisha Begum and that in fact the property was owned by one Kallan, from whom sale deed was obtained by petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner had no knowledge of the order dated 02.03.2010 and it is only when an F.I.R. was lodged by the State authorities in September, 2021 that petitioner has come to know of the order passed by the Custodian declaring the property to be enemy property. It is stated that petitioner has been in continuous uninterrupted possession over the land in question and since no opportunity was given it could not place its case before the Custodian. 4. Ms. T.J. Monir, who appears for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 states that the order has been passed by the Custodian strictly in accordance with law. 5. Admittedly, the order dated 02.03.2010 is ex parte as against the present petitioner. Factual issues as have been urged before this Court by the petitioner in respect of its right over the land has not been examined by the Custodian of Enemy Property. The petitioner's claim that it is in possession over the land in question for long and that the land in question was owned by Kallan and not Aisha Begum is required to be examined by the Custodian, at the first instance. 6. The petitioner's claim that it is in possession over the land in question for long and that the land in question was owned by Kallan and not Aisha Begum is required to be examined by the Custodian, at the first instance. 6. In the opinion of the Court, it would therefore be appropriate to permit the petitioner to make an application before authority concerned seeking recall of the order dated 02.03.2010, annexing all materials in support of its claim over the land in question, together with a certified copy of this order, within three weeks from today. Second respondent would get the facts inquired into and shall proceed to pass appropriate order upon such application, in accordance with law, within a further period of four months, thereafter. The application of petitioner would be entertained notwithstanding the fact that no specific provision of recall is provided for in the Act inasmuch as recall herein is a procedural recall and in view of the law settled the power in that regard inheres in all quasi-judicial authorities. Till an appropriate decision in the matter is taken the parties shall maintain status-quo over the disputed land and the petitioner is also restrained from raising any construction etc. Based upon the order passed on such application and subject to right of contest, as per the Act, the parties shall proceed as per law. The writ petition stands disposed off, accordingly.