SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 71204

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.Sathish Kumar, J
S.Fahath – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.No.1009 of 2024 | W.M.P.No.1053 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Bharath Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy, SCGPC for RR1 and 2, Mr.D.Gopal, GA for RR3 to 6

The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to natural justice principles in administrative procedures, particularly the right to a personal hearing in matters involving property claims under the Enemy Property Act.

Headnote:(A) Enemy Property Act, 1968 - Section 18 - Writ of certiorarified mandamus - Impugned order passed without providing an opportunity for personal hearing violates principles of natural justice - The petitioner was a bona fide purchaser and entitled to a fair hearing regarding the property claimed - The proper procedure as laid down under section 18 of the EP Act was not adhered to, warranting the quashing of the impugned order. (Paras 16, 18, 20, 21)

(B) Natural Justice - Adherence to principles of natural justice is mandatory in administrative proceedings where civil consequences ensue - Requirement for personal hearing must be strictly followed to ensure fairness in decision-making. (Paras 19, 20)

Facts of the case:
Writ petition challenging order by the Union of India regarding properties claimed as enemy property under the EP Act, asserting that the petitioner's father was an Indian citizen and his heirs were not Pakistan nationals.

Findings of Court:
Lack of proper opportunity for hearing and adherence to statutory procedure culminated in an unjust order regarding property rights.

Issues: Whether due process was followed in determining property status under the Enemy Property Act, and if the petitioner was entitled to a personal hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing, the impugned order could not stand, thus ensuring equitable treatment and adherence to statutory rights.

Result: Writ petition allowed, and the case remanded for reconsideration with proper opportunity granted.

Table of Content
1. ownership history of the disputed properties. (Para 2 , 3)
2. legal status of the properties as enemy property. (Para 7)
3. petitioner’s argument for rightful ownership and procedural compliance. (Para 9)
4. court's observation regarding the necessity of personal hearing. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. emphasis on maintaining natural justice in decisions impacting civil rights. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
6. court order to remand for reconsideration with proper process. (Para 21)

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order dated 20.03.2023 passed by the first respondent, the present writ petition has been filed.

2.It is the case of the writ petitioner that one Dr.Azizuddin Ahamed was the absolute owner of the lands measuring 31.33 acres comprised in various survey numbers at Pootai village, Sankarapuram Taluk [previously Chidambaram District], presently Kallakurichi District. The said lands were purchased by Dr.Azizuddin Ahamed vide sale deed in document No.3410 of 1964, dated 16.09.1964 from one Tmt.Fathima Begum. Ever since the date of the purchase, he was in possession and enjoyment of the properties. Said Dr.Azizuddin Ahamed was born in undivided India and was an Indian citizen. During his life time, his wife and his minor children went to Pakistan. However, Dr.Azizuddin Ahamed remained in India as an Indian citizen. The eldest son of Dr.Azizuddin Ahamed, namely Mr.Anisur Rahman had returned to India in the year 1965 and was living with his father. The said Mr.Anisur Rahman had never obtained citizenship of Pakistan. Dr.Azizuddin Ahamed died intestate on 14.04.1971 leaving behind him his eldest son Mr.Anisur Rahman as his successor to the said properties. Since then, the said Mr.Anisur Rahman become the absolute owner of said properties and was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same without any hindrance.

3.The said Mr.Anisur Rahman, during his life time, had executed a sale deed dated 27.01.1977 in favour of one Mr.Abdul Sattar in respect of Survey No.50/2 measuring an extent of 6.04 acres, S.No.52/2 measuring an extent of 4.00 acres and S.No.53/6 measuring an extent of 2.14 acres, totally measuring 12 acres and 18 cents. Similarly, he has also executed another sale deed in Document No.2043 of 1979 dated 18.08.1979 in favour of one Tmt.Aabidun Beevi, wife of Mr.Abdul Sattar, in respect of S.No.52/2 measuring an extent of 4.30 acres along with the ownership over pathway in the entire extent of 2.61 acres in S.No.48/1 in the said village. After the demise of said Mr.Abdul Sattar and his wife Tmt.Aabidun Beevi, the properties were devolved upon their legal heirs, namely Mr.Malik Batcha, Mr.Saleem, Mr.Shahjahan and Tmt.Kudumob and they were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties without any hindrance.

4.In the year 2004, one Mr.Sarbuddin Sahib has purchased the properties comprised in S.Nos.52/2B measuring an extent of 1 acre and 92 cents in Pootai village, Sankarapuram Taluk by document No.1286 of 2004 dated 13.05.2004 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Sankarapuram. Subsequently, the said properties were purchased by petitioner’s mother Tmt.S.Mumtaj on 27.05.2008 by sale deed in Document No.2229 of 2008. Similarly, the petitioner’s mother Tmt.S.Mumtaj had also purchased some properties from Mr.Malik Batcha on 29.05.2008 by virtue of sale deed in Document No.2257 of 2008. The petitioner’s father Mr.S.Saleem had executed a settlement deed dated 27.01.2021 settling some of the properties in favour of the petitioner. After the said conveyance, the respective purchasers were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties concerned.

5.After the demise of Dr.Azizuddin Ahamed on 14.04.1971, the first respondent had issued a notice dated 18.12.1980 to Mr.Anisur Rahman and others to show cause as to why the sale of said properties and the transfer in question should not be declared as void. The said notice was issued in terms of the notification issued by the first respondent in Notification No.12/2/65-E, dat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top