The Enemy Property Act, 1968
π The Enemy Property Act, 1968
π¦ 1. Historical Background
The Enemy Property Act, 1968 was enacted after the Indo-Pak wars of 1965 and 1971.
After the wars, the Indian government took control of properties left behind by individuals who had migrated to Pakistan or China and were considered "enemies" under international law.
These properties are known as "enemy properties."
π¦ 2. Purpose and Objective
To vest the control and ownership of enemy properties in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India.
To prevent the return of such properties to enemies or their legal heirs.
To protect national interest and security, ensuring that no benefits go to individuals aligned with hostile nations.
π¦ 3. Applicability
Applies across India, including Union Territories.
Deals with properties owned by or for the benefit of:
Citizens of Pakistan
Citizens of China
Companies or firms registered in those countries
Legal heirs or successors of such individuals or entities
π¦ 4. Key Definitions (Section 2)
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Enemy | A person or country defined as an enemy under the Defence of India Rules during times of war (mainly Pakistan or China). |
| Enemy Property | Any property belonging to, held by, or managed on behalf of an enemy. |
| Custodian | The government-appointed officer responsible for managing enemy properties. |
π¦ 5. Key Provisions
πΉ Section 3 β Vesting of Enemy Property
All enemy properties automatically vest in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India.
The enemy (or their heirs) cannot claim any right, title, or interest in such property.
πΉ Section 5 β Control and Management
The Custodian has full control over management, administration, and disposal of enemy property.
Includes movable and immovable properties (e.g., land, buildings, shares, bank accounts).
πΉ Section 6 β Powers of Custodian
The Custodian can:
Collect rent or profits
Maintain and protect properties
Sell or dispose of properties with government approval
πΉ Section 6A to 6E β (Amended Provisions of 2017)
These sections were added by the Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2017.
Major changes:
Ownership remains permanently with the Custodian.
No transfer of enemy property is validβeven if done before the Act.
No court shall entertain any claim against the vesting of enemy property.
Applies retrospectively, invalidating earlier court decisions or transfers.
πΉ Section 8 β Exemptions
The Central Government has the power to exempt certain properties or persons from the operation of the Act.
π¦ 6. Amendments and Recent Developments
β The Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2017
Made the Act more stringent.
Prevented legal heirs of enemies (even Indian citizens) from reclaiming such property.
Made the vesting absolute and permanent.
Barred civil courts and tribunals from hearing related disputes.
βοΈ 7. Important Case Law
β 1. Raja Mohammad Amir Mohammad Khan v. Union of India (2005)
Facts: Claimant was the son of the Raja of Mahmudabad who migrated to Pakistan. The son returned to India and claimed rights over his fatherβs property.
Held: Initially, the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, allowing him to reclaim the property.
Aftermath: The 2017 amendment nullified this judgment, retrospectively stating that no heir of an enemy shall have any rights in enemy property.
β 2. Union of India v. Ghulam Sarwar (2020)
Facts: Heir of a person who migrated to Pakistan filed for restoration of property.
Held: Allahabad High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the amended Act, ruling that no right accrues to legal heirs of an enemy.
Significance: Reinforced the supremacy of the amended 2017 Act.
β 3. Fakhruddin v. Union of India (2021)
Facts: Petitioner claimed that he was an Indian citizen and entitled to enemy property left by his grandfather who migrated to Pakistan.
Held: The court ruled against the petitioner, citing that once the property vests in the Custodian, no further claim can arise, even by Indian descendants.
π¦ 8. Criticism and Controversy
Critics argue that the Act is harsh, especially on Indian citizens whose forefathers migrated decades ago.
Denial of inheritance rights is seen by some as unconstitutional.
Retrospective application of law is viewed as against natural justice.
Bar on judicial review raises concerns about access to justice.
π¦ 9. Summary Table
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Enacted | 1968 |
| Amended | 2017 (major amendment) |
| Objective | To manage and vest enemy properties with the government |
| Administered by | Custodian of Enemy Property for India |
| Applies to | Properties of people who migrated to Pakistan/China |
| Rights of Heirs | β Not allowed after 2017 amendment |
| Court Access | β Barred from challenging vesting of property |
| Key Case | Raja Amir Mohammad Khan case (nullified by amendment) |
π¦ 10. Conclusion
The Enemy Property Act, 1968 is a unique piece of legislation meant to safeguard national interests during and after conflict with hostile nations. By vesting all such property in the Custodian, the Act prevents economic benefit from flowing to enemy states. Although controversial for its retrospective nature and strict denial of inheritance rights, it has been upheld by Indian courts as a legitimate exercise of sovereignty and legislative power.
RELATED Blog
0 comments