JUDGMENT : M.S. Sonak, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.B. Da Costa, learned Senior Advocate along with Ms. Karishma Betquecar for the petitioner. Mr. P. Arolkar learned Additional Government Advocate appears for respondents nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Pravin Faldessai learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appears for respondent no.4. 2. In our order dated 27.01.2021, we had made it clear that this petition will be disposed of finally at the stage of admission after pleadings are complete. The pleadings are indeed complete and, therefore, we proceed to issue Rule in this petition. The rule is made returnable forthwith at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The challenge in this petition is to the following : (a) The action of respondents nos.1, 2 & 3 carrying out correction or mutation in the survey records relating to the property under survey no.236/17, Assagao, Bardez, Goa. This correction/mutation has the effect of including the name of the Custodian of Enemy Property of India, either along with the petitioner or in the place of the petitioner; (b) The order dated 08.10.2010, made by respondent no.4, in the purported exercise of powers under Section 5 and 24 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 (the said Act); 4. The record bears out that by registered Sale Deed dated 15.06.2007, the petitioner purchased from Stephen Ignatius (respondent no.5) property admeasuring 750 square meters surveyed under no.236/17, Assagao, Bardez, Goa. Based on this Sale Deed, the mutation was carried out in the survey records on 10.10.2007. In terms of this mutation, the name of Stephen Ignatius was deleted and that of the petitioner included, after following the procedure prescribed under the Goa Land Revenue Code, 1968 (the said Code). 5. The petitioner has pleaded that sometime in the year 2020, the petitioner discovered that by an order made sometime in the year 2010, the survey authorities corrected/mutated the survey record by invoking the provisions of Section 103 of the Code and included in the survey record, the name of the Custodian of Enemy Property as against the property surveyed under no.236/17. The petitioner has pleaded that neither Stephen Ignatius nor the petitioner was served with any notice before effecting the alleged correction/mutation. The petitioner has pleaded that no opportunity whatsoever was granted to the petitioner before making this so-called correction/mutation. The petitioner has pleaded that neither Stephen Ignatius nor the petitioner was served with any notice before effecting the alleged correction/mutation. The petitioner has pleaded that no opportunity whatsoever was granted to the petitioner before making this so-called correction/mutation. These averments have not been denied in the returns filed by the Respondents. 6. Mr. Prashil Arolkar, learned Additional Government Advocate, to a reply from the query of this Court, also submitted that there was no record of service of any notice to either Stephen Ignatius or the petitioner before the correction/mutation was made in terms of Section 103 of the Code. 7. Section 103 of the Code deals with the correction of clerical errors and reads thus: 103. Correction of clerical errors - The Collector may, at any time, correct or cause to be corrected any clerical errors and any errors which the parties interested admit to have been made in the record of rights or registers maintained under this Chapter or which a revenue officer may notice during the course of his inspection. Provided that, when any error is noticed by a revenue officer during the course of his inspection, no such error shall be corrected unless a notice has been given to the parties and objections, if any, have been disposed of finally in accordance with the procedure relating to disputed entries. 8. In this case, there was no admission by the petitioner or Stephen Ignatius that the entry in the survey record in their favour was an error or a clerical error. In any case, the proviso to Section 103 of the Code states that when an error is noticed by a revenue officer during the course of his inspection, no such error shall be corrected unless notice has been given to the parties and objections, if any, have been disposed of finally in accordance with the procedure related to the disputed entries. 9. The procedure prescribed in the proviso, which is even otherwise consistent with the principles of natural justice and fair play was not followed in the said case. The correction/mutation order also contains no reasons whatsoever except that there is a reference to the order under Sections 5 and 24 of the said Act dated 08.10.2010 made by the Custodian of Enemy Property. The correction/mutation order also contains no reasons whatsoever except that there is a reference to the order under Sections 5 and 24 of the said Act dated 08.10.2010 made by the Custodian of Enemy Property. Therefore, based on non-compliance with the provisions of Section 103 of the Code, as also the failure to comply with principles of natural justice and fair play, the impugned order purporting to make correction/mutation to the survey records about the property surveyed under no.236/17 is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 10. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 08.10.2010 made by the Custodian-Respondent no.4 under sections 5 and 24 of the Enemy Property Act,1968 by pointing out that neither Stephen Ignatius nor the petitioner was aware of such order until the year 2020 when the petitioner noticed the so-called correction/mutation in the survey record. 11. Mr. Faldessai, however, submitted that the petitioner, who has purchased the said property from Stephen Ignatius has no locus standito challenge this order. He pointed out that in terms of this order, the said property stood vested in the Custodian sometime in the year 1966 itself and, therefore, the purported sale by Stephen Ignatius to the petitioner gives the petitioner no locus standito challenge the same. 12. We have considered Mr. Faldessai's submissions. In the peculiar facts of the present case, we are unable to accept the same. The impugned order dated 08.10.2010 has been made against the mother of Stephen Ignatius by the name Leonildes Artemisia. There is material on record and even otherwise it cannot be disputed that said Leonildes expired on 01.02.1966. Based on this order, the respondents seek to question the Sale Deed dated 15.06.2007, by which the petitioner acquired the property from Leonildes's son Stephen Ignatius. Again, based on this order dated 08.10.2010, the respondents seek to effect correction/mutation in the survey records and include the name of the Custodian of Enemy Property. Therefore, the petitioner is directly affected by this order and has sufficient interest and locus standito challenge the same. 13. Mr. M.B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel submits that the impugned order dated 08.10.2010 has been made against a dead person and, therefore, the same is a nullity. Therefore, the petitioner is directly affected by this order and has sufficient interest and locus standito challenge the same. 13. Mr. M.B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel submits that the impugned order dated 08.10.2010 has been made against a dead person and, therefore, the same is a nullity. He submits that there is no record of the issue of any notice to Stephen Ignatius, the legal heir of Leonildes, or any other affected person before the impugned order was made. He submits that there is no legal material to sustain the finding that Leonildes was a Pakistani citizen. He submits that the burial certificate was not legally admissible in evidence and that respondent no.4 misdirected himself in law relying upon a burial certificate. He pointed out that even the State Government Authorities had recommended the closure of the matter since there was no material concerning the migration of Leonildes or the alleged loss of her Indian citizenship. 14. Mr. Da Costa submits that all such issues, which he has now raised, stand answered in the Petitioner’s favour in the decision of Shane Francisco Dias V/s. Union of India & Ors, 2019 DGLS (Bom.) 1357 and in Natalina Gonsalves & Ors. V/s. Union of India & Ors.. 2021 DGLS (Bom.) 603. He submits that in both these decisions, based on almost similar facts, orders virtually identical to the impugned order were set aside by the Division Bench of this Court. For all these reasons, Mr. Da Costa submits that the impugned order dated 08.10.2010 made by the Custodian of Enemy Property is required to be set aside. 15. Mr. Faldessai, fairly accepted that most of the legal issues now raised by Mr. Da Costa stand substantially answered in favour of the Petitioner by the decisions in Shane Dias(supra) and Natalina Gonsalves(supra). He, however, submitted that in both these decisions this Court had made it clear that the quashing of the impugned orders will not preclude the respondents from initiating fresh proceedings in terms of the provisions of the Enemy Property Act and Enemy Property Rules, 2015 if they are satisfied that there exist any material or grounds for doing so. He submits that similar liberty may be granted in this matter as well. 16. Since the contentions now raised by Mr. He submits that similar liberty may be granted in this matter as well. 16. Since the contentions now raised by Mr. Da costa in the context of the impugned order dated 08.10.2020 are answered in favour of the Petitioner in the decisions of Shane Dias (supra) and Natalina Gonsalves (supra), there can be no difficulty in adopting the reasoning in the said decisions rather than repeating such reasoning in this matter. To our query as to whether the respondents have challenged the decisions in ShaneDias(supra) and Natalina Gonsalves (supra), Mr. Faldessai replied that the decisions were not challenged because the respondents decided to initiate fresh proceedings by following the provisions of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 and Enemy Property Rules, 2015 in the said two matters. 17. The issue of the evidentiary value of the burial certificate was not involved in ShaneDias(supra) and Natalina Gonsalves (supra). However, most of the other legal contentions raised by Mr. Da Costa stand covered in favour of the petitioner in the said two decisions. 18. Besides, in this case, we find that the Deputy Collector (Revenue), on 19.03.1999 had informed the Custodian about the reply received from the constituted attorney of Stephen Ignatius that Leonildes used to visit her husband Michael, who was employed in Karachi, sometimes once in a year or sometimes once in two years, but that she was an Indian national for the period between 10.09.1965 till her death in 1966 at Karachi. This communication states that the case is being referred to the CID Police Department to ascertain whether she was an Indian national and the outcome of the case was to be reported to the Custodian in due course. 19. There is nothing on record about the outcome of the CID inquiries. However, there is on record a communication dated 03.05.2007, addressed by the Custodian to the Additional Collector of North Goa. In this letter, there is a reference to a letter dated 06.11.1998 from the Additional Collector to the Custodian recommending the closure of the case of Leonildes. However, the Custodian has referred to the burial certificate and based thereon concluded that Leonildes must have been a citizen of Pakistan. 20. Now, according to us, this cannot be regarded as the proper mode for concluding that Leonildes had acquired citizenship of Pakistan or that she was no longer a citizen of India. However, the Custodian has referred to the burial certificate and based thereon concluded that Leonildes must have been a citizen of Pakistan. 20. Now, according to us, this cannot be regarded as the proper mode for concluding that Leonildes had acquired citizenship of Pakistan or that she was no longer a citizen of India. Based only on the burial certificate, Mr. Da Costa is right that no such conclusion could have been arrived at. The burial certificate, according to us, could be taken into account as a piece of corroborating evidence, but could not have formed the sole basis for record of such a conclusion, and that too without grant of any opportunity whatsoever to the legal representatives of Leonildes or the successors of Leonildes. 21. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.4, in paragraph 30, it is admitted that Leonildes, who was born as a Goan national by virtue of Goa, Daman and Diu Administration Act, 1962 became an Indian national. However, this affidavit states that she migrated to Pakistan where she expired and was buried in Karachi, Pakistan. Now, there are no details as to when she is alleged to have migrated and, further, whether she, at any stage, gave up her Indian citizenship and acquired Pakistani citizenship. In any case, we feel that such issues could not have been decided without even the minimum compliance with the principles of natural justice and fair play. To record such conclusions it was necessary to have noticed the legal representatives or successors of such Leonildes because, ultimately, the properties to which they succeeded are sought to be denied to them based on an order made almost 44 years from the demise of said Leonildes. 22. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons and by following the reasoning in Shane Dias (supra) and Natalina Gonsalves (supra), we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 08.10.2010 made by the Custodian of Enemy Property. Once this order is quashed another ground is available to the petitioner to seek the quashing of the correction/mutation order. Based on this ground also the impugned correction/mutation order deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. 23. Once this order is quashed another ground is available to the petitioner to seek the quashing of the correction/mutation order. Based on this ground also the impugned correction/mutation order deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. 23. The Rule in this petition is therefore made absolute by quashing the correction/mutation order no.38213 in respect of survey no.236/17 of Assagao, Bardez, Goa and, further, by quashing the impugned order dated 08.10.2010 made by the Custodian of Enemy Property, concerning the property bearing Survey No.236/17, Assagao Bardez, Goa. 24. However, we clarify that quashing of such orders will not preclude the respondents from initiating fresh proceedings in terms of the Enemy Property Act if they are satisfied that there exist any material or grounds for doing so. In short, we grant respondent no.4 herein liberty as was granted in paragraph 45 of our decision in Shane Dias (supra). Based on the decision of respondent no.4, even respondents nos.1, 2 & 3 are granted liberty to carry out mutation by following the procedure provided in said Code and after complying with principles of natural justice and fair play. 25. The rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order for costs.