By the Court.—Heard Shri Faizan Ahmad and Shri S. F. A. Naqvi, Advocates on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Petitioners before this Court, who are two in number seek quashing of the order of the Chief Supervisor, Enemy Property, Home Department, Union of India, New Delhi dated 18.6.2014 whereunder the District Magistrate, Fatehpur, Custodian of the enemy property has been informed that the properties detailed in the letter have already been declared to be enemy property, therefore, necessary corrections in the relevant revenue records be got made. The present occupants as mentioned in the letter, if they want to retain the possession may be asked to pay rent for the occupation of the property, which may be determined at the current market rate so that there is no loss of revenue to the State Government. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the order of the District Magistrate, Fatehpur dated 4.8.2014 issued for enforcing the order made by the Chief Supervisor, Enemy Properties, Union of India referred to above, and for payment of rent since September 1965 till date for use and occupation of the said enemy property.

3. The petitioner has lastly prayed for quashing of the order dated 27.10.2014 whereunder a direction has been issued for letting out the enemy property on lease by the District-Fatehpur.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that while issuing the order impugned dated 18.6.2014, whereby the property in question has been declared to be enemy property, no inquiry has been conducted nor the petitioners have been afforded any opportunity of hearing and for the purpose reliance has been placed upon paragraphs 20 & 21 of the present writ petition.

5. For the proposition that no declaration can be made of any property being enemy property without opportunity of hearing and without enquiry, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon paragraphs 5 & 6 of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Saeed Ahmed v. Custodian of Enemy Property, 2007(6) ADJ 166 (DB). He has also placed reliance upon paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of another Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Swadeshi Commercial Company Ltd. v. Union of India, 2006 Law Suit (Cal) 437, and upon paragraphs 21 & 22 of judgment in the case of Tanwir Eqbal v. Union of India, 1988 Law Suit (Cal) 151. Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another v. Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan, (2010) 2 SCC 492, for the proposition that the Central Government may by general or special order provide that any enemy property vested in the custodian under the Act shall be divested from him and shall be returned in such manner as may be prescribed thereon if the successor to the enemy are Indian nationals. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Union of India and another v. Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan, 2005 (8) SCC 696, for the proposition that enemy property inherited on the death of the enemy subject by his son, who is a citizen of India can succeed the property and in such circumstance the custodian shall be bound to release the same. It has been held that if there has been inordinate delay on the part of the Central Government to take a decision on various representations made by the citizen of India son of enemy subject succeeding to the enemy property then the hands of the Court are not tied and it can direct that such property be divested from the custodian.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judment in the case of Allahuddin and others v. Union of India and others, 2010(1) ADJ 408 (DB), for the proposition that the custodian or the enemy cannot be allowed to take forceful possession of enemy property and that the Central Government could under Section 18 of Enemy Property Act, 1968 divest an enemy property vested in the custodian by general or sp