AMIR MOHAMMED KHAN Vs. S.N. MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE late Raja of Mahmudabad of District Sitapur, U.P., was the owner and occupier of various properties in Lucknow, Sitapur, Lakhimpur Kheri, Barabanki and Nainital. In December 1957, the said erstwhile Raja of Mahmudabad migrated to Pakistan and became a citizen of Pakistan leaving behind his son and other relatives in India who continued to be Indian citizens. In terms of Rule 133-V of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, which came into force with effect from 5/11/1962, the Central Government was authorised to appoint a Custodian of Enemy Property in India with the object of preserving such properties. Subsequently, in exercise of powers under Rule 133-V several orders were issued by the Central Government by which all immovable properties in India belonging to or held by or managed on behalf of Pakistani nationals stood vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property in India with immediate effect. Since the father of the respondent was a citizen of Pakistan, his properties also vested in the Custodian.

(2.) THE erstwhile Raja of Mahmudabad died in London on 14/10/1973, leaving behind Amir Mohammed Khan, hereinafter referred to as "A.M. Khan", as his sole legal heir to succeed to his estate. Thereafter, since there was no response to the various representations made by A.M. Khan to the Central Govt., as also the Custodian, to release the properties forming the estate of his late father, since they had ceased to be enemy property, he filed Suit No. 365 of 1981 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Lucknow on 18/11/1981, seeking a declaration that he was the sole heir and successor of the deceased Raja of Mahmudabad. The said suit was dismissed for non-joinder of the Custodian of Enemy Property as a party respondent. Thereafter, a second suit, being Suit No. 219 of 1984, was filed before the learned Civil Judge, Lucknow, for the selfsame declaration and the same was decreed on 8/7/1986 and A.M. Khan was declared the sole heir and successor of his late father and thereby entitled to 25% or whatever percentage as may be allowed to him in the suit property.

(3.) THE said judgment and order of the High Court was challenged by the Union of India in C.A. No. 2501 of 2002 which was dismissed2 with a fresh direction to the appellants to get the buildings (residence or offices) vacated from officers who were in occupation of the same and to hand over the possession thereof to the writ petitioner within 8 weeks from the date of the order. The appellants were also directed to hand over possession of the other properties as well. It was specifically indicated that failure to comply with the directions to hand over the possession within 8 weeks would constitute disobedience of the order and the appellants would be in contempt thereof. Liberty was also given to the writ petitioner to move an application in this Court if the directions given were not complied with.