AINAMUL HAQUE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners challenged notice under the Enemy Property Act, 1968 (for brevity "Act of 1968"). The petitioners contended that the notice is beyond limitation and hence requires interference. The replies filed by them have not been considered was another contention.

(2.) The petitioners had purchased land from one Abdul Jabbar, who in course of time migrated to Bangladesh. The notice is said to have been issued in October 2018, when the properties were purchased long back. The learned Single Judge directed that replies are filed within a period of one week, if not already filed. The authorities were directed to consider the same and proceed accordingly. Liberty was also reserved to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum, if any adverse action or decision is taken. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the properties purchased in 1964 cannot be vested under the Act of 1968.

(3.) Learned counsel also placed a decision of the Calcutta High Court before us, Md. Nazrul Islam vs. Union of India & Ors. 1977 (2) CLJ 96. The specific reference made is to the following declaration: It appears from the materials placed before me that before 1968 there was no finding that the impugned property belonged to a Pakistani National and unless there was a specific order in terms of the said Notification the property of a Pakistani National could not be continuing to vest in the Custodian of Enemy Property in terms of Sec. 5 of the Act.