1. Writ petition challenging state action treating property as enemy/evacuee property and restraining construction. (Para 2 , 3 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(All) 1560
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Prakash Padia, Vivek Saran, JJ.
Smt. Prem Goel and others – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondents
WRIT - C No. - 7015 of 2023
Decided On : 28-09-2026
Important Points
The state cannot treat a property as enemy or evacuee property to stop construction without documentary evidence of its registration as such or a formal declaration by the competent authority, especially when the Custodian of Enemy Property has already cleared the property.
Subject
Property Law - Enemy and Evacuee Property
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Enemy Property Act, 1968 - Sections 2(b) and 2(c) - Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 - Sections 2(f) and 7-A - Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 - Rule 7(3) - Treatment of property as enemy or evacuee property - Where the specialized authority has categorically recorded that the property is not enemy property, the state cannot stop construction based on the nationality of the original owner. (Paras 14-16)
(B) Evacuee Property - To treat a property as evacuee property, it must be recorded as such following the prescribed procedure, including publication in the Official Gazette or other manner as deemed fit by the Custodian - Mere allegations without documentary evidence or proof of registration are insufficient to justify state interference in the possession and development of the property, especially after the repeal of the relevant act. (Paras 20-26)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing state respondents not to treat their property as enemy or evacuee property and to stop interference in construction for which a map had been sanctioned. The state contended that since the original owner had migrated to another country, the property should be treated as enemy or evacuee property. The petitioners provided a clear chain of title since 1946 and produced an order from the competent authority confirming the land was not enemy property.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the competent authority had already concluded that the property was not enemy property. Additionally, the state failed to produce any record or notification to prove the property was ever recorded as evacuee property under the prescribed legal framework and cut-off dates.
Issues: Whether the state is justified in stopping construction by treating a property as enemy or evacuee property in the absence of official records or a declaration from the competent authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The state cannot prevent construction on a property by merely alleging it is enemy or evacuee property without documentary proof of its registration as such. When the relevant authority clears the property from the enemy property list and no evidence of evacuee status is provided, such interference is illegal.
Result: Petition allowed.
(B) Evacuee Property - To treat a property as evacuee property, it must be recorded as such following the prescribed procedure, including publication in the Official Gazette or other manner as deemed fit by the Custodian - Mere allegations without documentary evidence or proof of registration are insufficient to justify state interference in the possession and development of the property, especially after the repeal of the relevant act. (Paras 20-26)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing state respondents not to treat their property as enemy or evacuee property and to stop interference in construction for which a map had been sanctioned. The state contended that since the original owner had migrated to another country, the property should be treated as enemy or evacuee property. The petitioners provided a clear chain of title since 1946 and produced an order from the competent authority confirming the land was not enemy property.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the competent authority had already concluded that the property was not enemy property. Additionally, the state failed to produce any record or notification to prove the property was ever recorded as evacuee property under the prescribed legal framework and cut-off dates.
Issues: Whether the state is justified in stopping construction by treating a property as enemy or evacuee property in the absence of official records or a declaration from the competent authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The state cannot prevent construction on a property by merely alleging it is enemy or evacuee property without documentary proof of its registration as such. When the relevant authority clears the property from the enemy property list and no evidence of evacuee status is provided, such interference is illegal.
Result: Petition allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ravi Anand Agarwal, Shreya Gupta
For the Respondent: A.S.G.I., Anupam Kumar, C.S.C.
For the Petitioner: Ravi Anand Agarwal, Shreya Gupta
For the Respondent: A.S.G.I., Anupam Kumar, C.S.C.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners claimed clear title; respondents contended property was enemy/evacuee property due to original owner's migration. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. No evidence property was ever recorded as enemy or evacuee property; previous inquiry orders rejected such claims. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 )
4. Property cannot be treated as enemy or evacuee without formal recording under relevant Acts. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 )
5. Respondents restrained from interfering in possession and construction on the property. (Para 27 , 28 )
6. What is required to treat a property as enemy property under the Enemy Property Act, 1968?
The property must be formally recorded as enemy property under the Act; mere allegations or communications are insufficient. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
7. Can a property be treated as evacuee property without formal proceedings under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950?
No. Formal proceedings and notification under the Act and Rules are required; mere allegations do not suffice. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 )
8. What is the cut-off date for applying the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 regarding transfers?
The cut-off date is 14 August 1947 under Section 2(f) of the Act. (Para 23 )
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Saran, J.
1. Heard Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Anupam Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following relief:-
“a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the State respondents not to treat the property bearing no. 25 (old no 19), Civil Lines, South, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh as enemy or evacuee property and to forthwith remove the signage-^^;g fu"dkUr lEifRr gSa vkKk ls dLVksfM;u eqtQ~QjuxjA ^^@bl leifRr ij fuekZ.k dk;Z d; fod; ÁfrcfU/kr fd;k x;k gSA vkKk ls dLVksfM;u eqtQ~QjuxjA put by them on the shutters of the ground floor shops of the commercial complex being constructed by the petitioners over the said property;
b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the State respondents not to cause any interference in the use, occupation, possession and development of property bearing no. 25 (old no 19), Civil Lines, South, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh by the petitioners.”
3. The facts, which are culled out from the averments made in the writ petition, are as follows:-
(i) The land-in-dispute is part of Plot No. 25 (old No. 19), Civil Lines, South, Muzaffarnagar, carved out of Khasra No. 834, admeasuring 90 sq mts. Which the petitioners no. 3 and 4 claim title of by virtue of sale registered deed dated 12.06.2018 duly executed by petitioners no. 1 and 2 to them.
(ii) Initially, this land-in-dispute and other land of Khasara No. 834, 835 and 843 belonged to one Nawab Mohammad Sadakkat Ali Khan s/o Nawab Mohammad Rustam Ali Khan, who vide an exchange deed dated 22.07.1946, duly registered on 23.07.1946; out of his entire holdings transferred to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, namely, Smt. Prakashwati w/o Lala Jagdish Prasad, Smt. Magan Murti w/o Radha Krishnan and Smt.Pushpawati w/o Jaiprakash (iii) On 30.09.1955 the said Smt. Prakashwati, Smt. Magan Murti and Smt. Pushpawati transferred their entire property, which was subject matter of the exchange deed to their own family members, namely, Sri Lal Jagdish Prasad, Sri Radha Krishnan, Sri Jaiprakash and Sri Surendra Prakash, by executing a gift deed.
(iv) Out of the aforementioned persons, Sri Surendra Prakash, filed Original Suit No. 8 of 1956 before the Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar seeking a declaration, as against his other family members, that he be declared as an exclusive owner of the property mentioned in Lot No. 5, in the plaint, on the basis of a family settlement dated 31.12.1955. The property in dispute was in this part of Lot No. 5, as stated in the petition.
(v) This suit came to be decreed on 06.09.1956 on basis of the family settlement, thereby the aforementioned Sri Surendra Prakash became the exclusive owner of the property in Lot No. 5, which included the property in dispute.
(vi) The aforementioned, Sri Surendra Prakash executed a will dated01.04.2013 bequeathing his right in the property to the petitioner nos. 1 and 2.
(vii) The aforementioned, Sri Surendra Prakash died on 01.05.2013 and by virtue of the said will, the property devolved to the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and they became exclusive owners.
(viii) Out of the property which devolved to the petitioner nos. 1 and 2, they sold about 90 square meters of land to the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 vide registered sale deed 12.06.2018 and put them in actual physical possession of the property-in-dispute.
(ix) However, the property, which the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 had inherited by virtue of a will dated 01.04.2013, was in occupation of various persons including one Shri Narendra Arora, and for the purposes of their eviction, the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 had adopted legal recourse, and after litigating till Supreme Court of India, they were able to seek eviction through court proceedings.
(x) It is the case of the petitioner that the behest of one of the tenants, namely, Sri Narendra Arora
