$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 01.12.2025 % Judgment delivered on: 10.12.2025 + W.P.(C) 18182/2025 & CM APPL. 75197/2025 ASHAN UR-RAB AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Dr. Hilaluddin, Advocate versus CEPI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Akshit Mohan and Mr. Aman Naqvi, Advocate for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

J U D G M E N T

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J.

-: CHALLENGE :-

1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, under Section 18 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968, whereby, the representation made by the petitioners against vesting of the property bearing no. 481 situated at Chatta Haji Mohd. Yusuf, Chitla Gate, Churiwalan, Delhi – 110006 (hereinafter referred to as the “subject property”) in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India (hereinafter referred to as the “Custodian”), has been rejected.

The petitioner also challenges the order dated 22.10.2010 passed by the Custodian under Section 5 read with Section 24 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968, whereby the subject property was held to have been vested in the Custodian with a further observation that the subject property shall remain vested in the Custodian till it is divested by the Central Government under Section 18 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968. By the said order, a certificate under Section 5 read with Section 12 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 was also issued on the same date, i.e. 22.10.2010, which is also under challenge herein.

The petitioners have also laid challenge to Rules 133 (I)(1) and 133 (R) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 and Rules 130 and 147 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, seeking a declaration that the said rules are ultra vires the Constitution of India.

A prayer has also been made seeking a declaration that affidavit dated

29.05.1999 allegedly filed by a Pakistani national in the proceedings before Custodian which had culminated in the order dated 22.10.2010, as nullity.

-: FACTS :-

2. Facts of the case in brief, which can be culled out from the proceedings available on record and on the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are as follows:-

3. The subject property was initially owned by one Mr. Sheikh Barkatullah, which was purchased by one Mr. Haji Mohd. Muslim through a registered Sale Deed executed on 13.12.1961. The petitioners claimed that they started residing in the subject property as tenants in the first floor since the early 1960s.

4. On 10.09.1965, the Government of India issued a gazette notification under Rule 133-V(1) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, thereby all immovable properties in India belonging to or held by or managed on behalf of all Pakistani nationals stood vested in the Custodian with immediate effect.

5. As per the respondents, Mr. Haji Mohd. Muslim left India in 1964 to Pakistan and became a Pakistani national. However, the claim put forth by the petitioners in the writ petition is that on 20.06.1968, Mr. Haji Mohd. Muslim executed a Sale Deed in respect of the subject property in favour of one Mrs. Kausar Jamal, who further sold the property by means of a Sale Deed dated 21.04.1994 to Mrs. Yasmeen Zia, Mrs. Shereen Zia, Miss Samar Begum and Mr. Mohd. Zubairul Arafeen.

6. As per the petitioners, the subject property is said to have been sold further vide Sale Deed dated 24.04.1995 in favour of one Mr. Salah Uddin. The petitioners have further claimed that all along these years, the petitioners and their families continued to live in the subject property as tenants on monthly rent basis. Thereafter, as stated by the petitioners, on 12.08.1995, an agreement was executed between Mr. Salah Uddin and the petitioners, whereby the absolute right for further construction above the second floor of the subject property, were transferred to the petitioners and to enjoy the occupancy