KOCHI: The Kerala High Court has held that just because a person had gone to Pakistan in search of a job and worked there for a short period will not bring him within the definition of 'enemy' under Rules 130 or 138 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971.
As many as 60 immovable properties in Kerala have been listed by the Custodian of Enemy Property for India (CEPI) as 'enemy properties'.
Justice Viju Abraham issued the order while allowing the petition filed by P Ummer Koya of Chettippadi, Malappuram, who retired from Kerala Police service, seeking to declare that his property to an extent of 20.500 cents in Parappanangadi village does not come under enemy properties.
Ummar Koya purchased the land from his father Kunji Koya, who had worked in Pakistan for some time. When the petitioner approached the Village officer, Parappanangadi for remitting the Basic Tax in respect of his properties.
The village officer informed that there were instructions from the Custodian of Enemy Property of India (CEPI) not to collect Basic Tax in respect of the properties as proceedings were initiated under the Enemy Property Act, of 1968.
The CEPI has initiated a national drive to inquire against several immovable properties out of which 60 immovable properties are in Kerala.
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. The petitioner argued that his father was a citizen of India. His father died in 1995 and the inhumation was at Valiya Juma-at Palli Kabrastan, Parappanangadi. The death certificate in this regard was also produced before the court.
The petitioner submitted that his father who was domiciled in India as of January 26, 1950, on the commencement of the Constitution, had gone to Karachi, Pakistan in 1953 in search of a job and worked there as a helper in a hotel for a short while.
When the police authorities continuously haunted the petitioner's father branding him as a Pakistan citizen, he approached the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi for determination of his national status as a Citizen of India under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act. The central government declared that the petitioner's father continued to be a citizen of India as he had not voluntarily acquired citizenship of Pakistan
The Central Government counsel opposed the plea and stated that since the petitioner's father went to Karachi, Pakistan in 1953 in search of a job, and worked there as a helper in a hotel, he would come within the definition of 'enemy' as provided in Rule 130(b) of the Defence of India Rules.
The court said that the central government had found that the petitioner's father has not voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Pakistan and he continues as a citizen of India. Hence, it is clear that the petitioner's father is not a person coming under the definition of an enemy. The court declared that the petitioner's father will not come under the definition of ‘enemy’ nor will the property held by him by any stretch of the imagination be held as an ‘enemy property’.
The central government has no case that the petitioner’s father was trading with an ‘enemy’ or part of any ‘enemy firm’ carrying out business with India. The court quashed the order of CEPI including the petitioner's land under enemy properties and directed the village officer to accept the basic tax of the petitioner’s property.