IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a person's status as an 'enemy' under the Enemy Property Act must be determined based on the definitions provided in the Act and the Citizenship Act, and not solely on residency in a foreign country.

JUDGMENT :

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:

The petitioner is a senior citizen who has retired from the Kerala Police Service. The petitioner's grandfather purchased land in the name of his 4 children viz. 1. Marakarkutty 2. Kunji Koya 3. Ummadi Umma and 4. Mohammed, having an extent of 42.500 cents (17.20 Ares), comprised in Re survey No. 99/3 (Old Sy. No.282/1) of Parappanangadi village by virtue of Ext.P1 Sale Deed. As per Ext.P1 sale deed, the father of the petitioner had one-fourth undivided right, title and interest in the aforesaid 42.500 cents (17.20 Ares) of land. The petitioner's father married Mrs.Imbichi Beevi in 1933 and in that wedlock, they had 5 children and the petitioner is the youngest among the children. The petitioner as per Sale Deed No. 1823/1972, purchased the one-fourth undivided rights of Mr. Marakarkutty. Likewise, by virtue of Sale Deed No. 1956/1972 and 1038/1973 of Parappanangadi Sub Registry, the petitioner purchased one-fourth undivided rights of Mrs. Ummadi Umma from her legal heirs and thereafter by Sale Deed No.2587/1974 the petitioner has purchased one-fourth undivided rights of Mr. Mohammed from his only son and legal heir Mr. Kasim. Finally, by virtue of Ext.P2 Sale Deed No.1061/1991, the petitioner purchased one-fourth undivided right of his father Mr. Kunji Koya. After the resurvey, the actual measurement of the property was found to be 36.867 cents alone and the same was mutated in the name of the petitioner under Thandaper Account No.3427 of Parappanandi Village, as is evident from Ext.P3 basic tax receipt. In the meanwhile the petitioner also purchased adjacent properties having an extent of 9.61 Ares as per Ext.P4 sale deed. The properties under Exts.P3 and P4 are in the same resurvey number and are lying contiguously as a single plot. Besides the above-mentioned property, the petitioner also owns 23.750 cents of land as is evident from Ext.P5 basic tax receipt. Thus a total extent of 42.60 Ares is mutated in favour of the petitioner as is evident from Ext.P6.

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 Section 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 Section 2(c) of the Enemy Property Act. The petitioner subm