26 Mar 2023  |   05:29am IST

‘Enemy property’ owners in Goa find themselves in a quandary

People occupying enemy properties even those who purchased legally in State and across the country are in a quandary as the Custodian of Enemy Property for India (CEPI) has decided to sign leave and licence agreement with such occupants, failing which process for eviction of enemy properties will be initiated against them with the help of District magistrate concerned before the sale of properties.VITHALDAS HEGDE evaluates the fallout of this decision by CEPI
‘Enemy property’ owners in Goa find themselves in a quandary

After the Indo-China war of 1962 and the India-Pakistan wars of 1965 and 1971, the Indian government took over the ownership of movable and immovable assets left behind by the people who left India after the wars. These properties, spread across several states in India, are known as enemy properties.

The Custodian of Enemy Property for India (CEPI), an office established under the Defence of India Act, 1939, is in charge of enemy properties in India. Through the Custodian, the centre is primarily in possession of all enemy properties in India. 

Following the 1965 war, India and Pakistan signed the Tashkent Declaration in 1966 and promised to negotiate the possible return of assets taken over by either side after the war. Breaching that promise, Pakistan disposed of all its enemy properties in 1971.

There are over 12,000 enemy properties in India. The CEPI has decided to sign leave and licence agreement with such occupants, failing which process for eviction of enemy properties will be initiated against them with the help of District magistrate concerned before the sale of properties.

Out of the 12,576 properties vested with the CEPI, a total of 12,450 were related to Pakistani nationals and 126 to Chinese citizens. Goa stands in fourth in terms of number of enemy properties identified.

The highest number of enemy properties were found in Uttar Pradesh (6,255 properties), followed by West Bengal (4,088 properties), Delhi (659), Goa (260), Maharashtra (208), Telangana (158), Gujarat (151), Tripura (105), Bihar (94), Madhya Pradesh (94), Chhattisgarh (78) and Haryana (71).

There are 71 enemy properties in Kerala, 69 in Uttarakhand, 67 in Tamil Nadu, 57 in Meghalaya, 29 in Assam, 24 in Karnataka, 22 in Rajasthan, 10 in Jharkhand, four in Daman and Diu and one each in Andhra Pradesh and Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

The CEPI decision has come after third party rights have been created on enemy property as flats were sold after developing the property.  

There are as many as 260 enemy properties situated across the State, the highest 231 properties located in the Bardez taluka while, 10 properties are situated in Tiswadi italuka and one in Bicholim taluka of North Goa district. In South Goa, 18 properties have been identified in Salcete and Mormugao talukas. The Goa government has identified more than 3.5 lakh square metres of enemy property across the State after resurvey.

In 14 cases, the High Court of Bombay at Goa had passed orders but by giving liberty to the Custodian of Enemy Property for India to take fresh steps in relation to the property. This also includes a case wherein a person had purchased the property after completing all government formalities and also after obtaining nil encumbrance certificates.  

There are as many as 260 enemy properties situated across the State, the highest 231 properties located in the Bardez taluka while, 10 properties are situated in Tiswadi taluka and one in Bicholim taluka of North Goa district. In South Goa, 18 properties have been identified in Salcete and Mormugao talukas. The Goa government has identified more than 3.5 lakh square metres of enemy property across the State after resurvey.

In 14 cases the High Court of Bombay at Goa had passed orders but by giving liberty to the Custodian of Enemy Property for India to take fresh steps in relation to the property. This also includes a case wherein a person had purchased the property 

after completing all government formalities and also after obtaining nil encumbrance certificate.   

In case of the enemy properties valued below Rs 1 crore, the Custodian of Enemy property for Indian shall offer for purchase to the occupant first and if offer of purchase is refused by the occupant, then the enemy property shall be disposed of in accordance with the procedure specified in the guidelines, the notification said.

The CEPI will seek the help of e-auction platform of public enterprise i.e. the Metal Scrap Trade Corporation Limited, for e-auction of enemy properties.

 In January this year CEPI wrote to the State government stating that it has started fresh investigations on the enemy properties since prima facie it appears that the subject properties has enemy interest and it can be concluded after completing the investigation proceedings under section 11 of Enemy Property Act.

Asking the State government authorities not to process mutation till the investigations are completed, the CEPI has further stated that if the mutation is completed then to ensure to enter prohibitory or restrain order on sale, mortgage and transfer or otherwise to record in the Revenue records and not allow creation of third party rights and to protect the government interest in the subject property.

In November last year, while hearing a writ petition filed by three real estate companies which had purchased the enemy property, the High Court of Bombay at Goa quashed and set aside Mutation and ordered deletion of the name of the CEPI and to restore the petitioners’ names in the survey records concerning the said property bearing survey number 97/3 of Marra Village, Bardez. At the same time, the Court granted liberty to the respondents – Custodian of Enemy Property and Ministry of Home Affairs to take fresh steps in relation to the said property in terms of the Enemy Property Act, 1968, if in their opinion, there exist grounds for taking such steps.

The petitioners had approached the court after they were shocked to know that their names were deleted and substituted by Custodian of Enemy Property in the occupants column in December 2021. This happened when the petitioners applied for survey records (Form I & XIV). The petitioners claimed that the authorities entered the name of Custodian of Enemy Property  without giving them any notice or the minimum compliance with the principles of natural justice and fair play.

Challenging the decision of the Bardez mamlatdar, the predecessors in title of the petitioners purchased the property in the year 1996 after issuing a public notice at the time of purchase. The present petitioners purchased the said property in 2006 and applied for mutation in the survey records, Based upon such application, the Talathi issued public notices in the newspapers and in the absence of any objections from any parties or authorities and based on the Sale Deed of 2006, the necessary mutation was carried out.

The petitioners' names were included in the survey records (Form I & XIV) on November 11, 2006 and four days later, NOC was granted for amalgamation and construction of buildings in the said property. On December 6, 2006, the Bardez Deputy Collector issued a Conversion Sanad and the Pilerne Village Panchayat issued a construction licence. On March 10, 2021, the petitioners paid the infrastructure tax for the building after completing an assessment and about a year later, they even sold a portion of the said property after issuing a public notice duly published in the newspapers.

Thus the petitioners challenged the order and certificate, both dated September 27, 2010 under Sections 5 and 24 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 and the mutation order,effected based on the impugned order and certificate under the EPA.

However, the Revenue department authorities have directed the Mamlatdar of Bardez not to entertain any application for Mutation under Section 96 of the Goa Land Revenue Code, in respect of enemy property situated at Marra, Bardez, which was acquired by three real estate companies.

The Mamlatdar of Bardez, has been asked to record “Prohibitory Restrain” order on sale, mortgage or transfer in the property document and not to permit creation of any third party right and to secure government interest in the subject property. 

The Ministry of Home Affairs has already launched a national survey of enemy 

properties, spread across 20 States and three Union Territories, with a purpose to identify and subsequently monetise all such properties.

The government formed a Group of Ministers (GoM), headed by Union Home minister Amit Shah, in 2020 to supervise monetisation of enemy properties.

The first-of-its-kind national survey by the Directorate General of Defence Estates (DGDE) will assess the present condition and value of the enemy properties identified by the CEPI.



IDhar UDHAR

Iddhar Udhar