P. UMMER KOYA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P9 to the extent 20.500 cents of petitioner's land comprised in Re. Sy. No. 144/7 of Parappanangadi village is included as Item No.8 of Annexure-B and the petitioner has also sought for a declaration that the said property cannot be proceeded against by the 6th respondent as per the provisions of the Enemy Property Act, 1968.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(3.) When the petitioner approached the 4th respondent for remitting the Basic Tax in respect of his proprieties covered under Ext.P6 for the financial year 2022-23, the 4th respondent refused to accept the tax stating a reason that the 3rd respondent under instruction of the 6th respondent had ordered not to collect Basic Tax in respect of the subject properties on the basis of a proceeding initiated under the Enemy Property Act, 1968. Later, Ext.P9 proceedings were issued in favour of the petitioner which revealed that the properties included as Item No.8 in Annexure B of Ext.P9 proceeding is that of the petitioner and directions have been issued to the Revenue Authorities to ensure that no transfers/approvals/orders are allowed/passed without prior approval of the office of the 6th respondent since these properties are under investigation by the Custodian of Enemy Property for India. Since the said property was brought under the purview of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 further enquiry was conducted and it is understood that the 6th respondent has initiated a national drive to make enquiry as against several immovable properties out of which 60 immovable properties are in Kerala and that the petitioner's father is doubted to be an enemy (Pakistan national) as defined under Sec. 2(b) of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 and consequently the portion of the property purchased by the petitioner from him is doubted to be an 'Enemy Property' as provided under Sec. 2(c) of the Enemy Property Act. The petitioner submits that even the petitioner's forefathers are persons hailing from Parappanangadi in Malappuram District and the petitioner's father was born in 1902 in Parappanangadi, and all the siblings of the petitioner's father are persons residing in and around Parappanangadi in Malappuram District and are citizens of India. It is also submitted that the petitioner's father died on 1/12/1995 at the age of 93 at Parappanangadi, and inhumation was at Valiya Juma-at Palli Kabrastan, Parappanangadi as is evident from Ext.P11 death certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Parappanangadi Municipality. It is submitted that the petitioner's father who was domiciled in India as on 26/1/1950 on the commencement of the Constitution, is said to have gone to Karachi, Pakistan in 1953 in search of a job and worked there as a helper in a hotel for a short while. When the police authorities continuously haunted the petitioner's father branding him as a Pakistan citizen, he approached the 5th respondent for determination of his national status as a Citizen of India under Sec. 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 r/w Rule 30 of the Citizenship Act, 1956 and Para 1 and 3 of Schedule III of Rule 30(2). On the basis of the said application, the 5th respondent initiated adjudication proceedings as per Exts.P12 and P12(a). After considering the statement of the petitioner's father and other records, the 5th respondent invoking the powers under Sec. 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 r/w Rule 30 of the Citizenship Act, 1956 and Para 1 and 3 of Schedule III of Rule 30(2) determined the national status of the petitioner's father and as per Ext.P13 order it has been declared by the 5th respondent that petitioner's father Pulikuti Akathu Kunhikoya had not voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Pakistan and therefore, continued as a citizen of India. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the teeth of Ext.P13, Ext-P9 proceedings of the 6th respondent Including a portion of the petitioner's property purchased from his late father as doubted to be Enemy Property is unsustainable. Consequently, the refusal of the 4th respondent to accept Basic Tax in respect his property having an extent of 42.60 Ares made up to 24.53 Ares comprised in Re Sy. No. 144/7 and 18.07 Ares comprised in Re Sy. No.87/4 and mutated in his name under Thandapper Account No.3425 of Parappanangadi village under Ext-P6 is highly arbitrary and liable to be interfered with.