SAIDA FATIMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the impugned order dated 16.4.1991 passed by the Reserve Bank of India revoking its earlier order dated 10.11.1987 is valid in law.

(2.) IT is not disputed that one Sadiq Ali was owner of considerable properties in the metropolitan city of Delhi. After his death, his mother Jahangira Begum inherited the said properties. Subsequently, Jahangira Begum also died. On her death, the properties devolved on Saughra Begum, Zubeda Begum, Zohra Begum, and Hamid Ali migrated to Pakistan prior to 1950 on partition of the country and they acquired Pakistani citizenship and they ceased to be Indian Citizens. The aforesaid Pakistani citizens had certain tenanted property at Ajmeri Gate. In the year 1965, the aforesaid Pakistani Nationals filed a suit for damages. The said suit was dismissed on the ground that the property stood vested firstly under the Defence of Indian Act in the Custodian and subsequently continued to remain vested in the Custodian under the Enemy Property Act, 1968. Aggrieved, the Pakistani nationals filed a revision petition before the High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court by judgment and order dated 10.3.1969 dismissed the revision petition holding that the said property vested in the Custodian under the Enemy Property Act and the plaintiffs who are the Pakistani citizens had no right to deal with the said property. It is not disputed that the said judgment has attained finality between the parties.

(3.) LEARNED senior counsel appearing for the appellants urged that there was no suppression of fact in the application for permission to transfer the property and, therefore, the order dated 16.4.1991 revoking permission granted by order dated 10.11.1987, passed by the Reserve Bank of India deserves to be set aside. We do not find any merit in this contention.