Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the vesting of a property as enemy property, holding that once a property stands vested in the Custodian under the Enemy Property Act, the presumption of ownership firmly rests with the Custodian and the burden lies squarely on the claimant to dislodge it. The Court ruled that a challenge raised after nearly 15 years, without any plausible explanation for delay and without credible proof that the original owner was an Indian national at the relevant time, could not be entertained. It upheld both the Custodian’s 2010 vesting order and the Ministry of Home Affairs’ 2025 decision rejecting the representation under Section 18 of the Act .
Facts
The dispute concerned an old property situated in Churiwalan, Old Delhi. The property was originally purchased in 1961 by an individual who, according to the authorities, migrated to Pakistan in 1964 and acquired Pakistani nationality. In September 1965, a Central Government notification under the Defence of India Rules vested all immovable properties belonging to Pakistani nationals in the Custodian of Enemy Property.
Despite this, multiple sale deeds were claimed to have been executed after 1965, transferring the property through successive private parties. The petitioners asserted long-standing possession as tenants since the early 1960s and claimed derivative rights through later transactions and construction agreements. In 1999, based on information including an affidavit sworn in Pakistan by the alleged son of the original owner, the Custodian initiated proceedings and finally passed an order in October 2010 declaring the property as enemy property and issuing a statutory certificate of vesting. This order went unchallenged for years. Only in 2025 did the petitioners file a representation under Section 18, which was rejected by the Ministry of Home Affairs, leading to the present writ petition .
Issues
The principal issues before the Court were whether the property had validly vested in the Custodian under the Enemy Property Act, whether alleged post-1965 sale deeds could defeat such vesting, and whether a writ petition filed after an unexplained delay of nearly 15 years could be entertained. The Court also examined whether the petitioners had discharged the statutory burden of proving that the original owner was not an enemy national at the relevant time.
Petitioners’ arguments
The petitioners contended that the property never validly vested in the Custodian because the original owner had allegedly executed a sale deed in 1968 in favour of a private purchaser, followed by successive transfers. They argued that reliance on an affidavit sworn before an oath commissioner in Pakistan was legally untenable and that the Custodian wrongly ignored registered sale deeds. It was further asserted that continuous possession since the 1960s had crystallised rights in their favour. The petitioners also mounted a constitutional challenge to certain provisions of the Defence of India Rules of 1962 and 1971, alleging excessive delegation and arbitrariness.
Respondents’ arguments
The Union of India and the Custodian opposed the petition, submitting that the property stood vested by operation of law in 1965 once the owner migrated to Pakistan. It was argued that Section 6 of the Enemy Property Act imposes an absolute prohibition on transfer of vested property, rendering any alleged sale deeds void. The respondents emphasised that neither the petitioners nor their alleged predecessors ever challenged the 2010 vesting order within the statutory timeframe. They further contended that no evidence was produced to show that the original owner held a valid Indian passport after migration, and that the challenge was hopelessly barred by delay and laches.
Analysis of the law
The Court analysed the scheme of the Enemy Property Act, particularly Sections 5, 6, and 18. It reiterated that vesting under the Act is statutory and automatic once the factual conditions are satisfied. Upon vesting, a strong presumption arises in favour of the Custodian’s title. Section 18 provides a limited remedial window of 30 days to approach the Central Government, and that too only if the claimant can demonstrate that the property was wrongly declared as enemy property. The Court held that general equitable considerations or long possession cannot override this statutory framework.
Precedent analysis
While not resting its decision on a single authority, the Court’s reasoning aligns with consistent precedent that enemy property legislation creates a complete code. Courts have repeatedly held that once vesting takes place, subsequent private transfers are legally inconsequential and that belated challenges undermine statutory finality. The judgment reinforces judicial deference to legislative policy underlying enemy property laws.
Court’s reasoning
The Court found that the Custodian’s 2010 order had carefully examined the available material, including verification from the Regional Passport Office confirming that no Indian passport was ever issued to the original owner after migration. The alleged sale deed of 1968 was held to be legally irrelevant due to the statutory bar on transfers of vested property. The Court was particularly critical of the unexplained 15-year delay, noting that even the statutory representation under Section 18 was filed far beyond the prescribed period. It concluded that the petitioners had utterly failed to discharge the burden required to rebut the presumption of vesting .
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the vesting of the property in the Custodian of Enemy Property and affirming the Ministry of Home Affairs’ rejection of the petitioners’ representation. The Court also rejected the constitutional challenge to the Defence of India Rules, finding no arbitrariness or infirmity. No costs were imposed.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the rigidity and finality of the enemy property regime. It sends a clear message that stale claims, derivative transactions, and prolonged possession cannot defeat statutory vesting. For occupants and transferees of properties with pre-1965 histories, the ruling underscores the critical importance of timely challenge and credible proof of nationality status. It also strengthens the Custodian’s position against decades-old private claims resurfacing through writ jurisdiction.
Case law references
- Enemy Property Act jurisprudence
Courts have consistently held that vesting under the Act creates a statutory presumption of ownership in favour of the Custodian, and that delayed challenges and post-vesting transfers are legally untenable.
FAQs
1. Can old sale deeds defeat vesting under the Enemy Property Act?
No. Once property vests in the Custodian, subsequent or prohibited transfers are void under Section 6.
2. Is there a time limit to challenge enemy property vesting?
Yes. Section 18 provides a limited window of 30 days to approach the Central Government.
3. Can long possession override enemy property laws?
No. Possession or equitable considerations cannot override statutory vesting.
