The Delhi High Court recently upheld the constitutional validity of several provisions of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 and Defence of India Rules, 1971 which deal with “enemy properties” in the country. 

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed the petition against rules 133(I)(1) and 133(R) of the 1962 Rules and rules 130 and 147 of the 1971 rules.

While Rule 133(I)(1) defines “enemy subject”, Rule 133(R) empowers the Central government to declare as void any transfer made by a person who becomes an enemy. Rule 130 of the 1971 Rules is another definition clause, and Rule 147 is functionally similar to Rule 133(R). 

The Court said that the petition had failed to mount a credible challenge to these provisions. 

“We are of the opinion that challenge to Rule 133 (R) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 appears to be completely irrelevant as in the facts of the case there has not been any such declaration that any transfer which is said to have taken place in respect of the subject property, was void under Rule 133 (R). The challenge to Rule 133 (R) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, thus, fails,” the Court said. 

The Bench made these observations as it rejected a plea filed by Ashan Ur-Rab and others, upholding the 2010 classification of a Delhi property as “enemy property” vested in the custodian of enemy property for India. 

It was argued that the original owner, Haji Mohammad Muslim, remained an Indian national when he sold the property in 1968 and that the government wrongly relied on the 1965 notification, which vested properties of all Pakistani nationals in the custodian of enemy property. 

The Court rejected this and accepted the custodian’s findings that the owner had migrated to Pakistan in 1964. As a result, the 1965 notification applied squarely.

“We also do not find any material on record to dislodge the subject property from being vested in the Custodian in view of the narration of facts made herein above. The petitioners have utterly failed to discharge their burden of establishing that the subject property did not vest in the Custodian,” the Court concluded. 

Advocate Dr Hilaluddin appeared for the petitioners. 

Advocates Akshit Mohan and Aman Naqvi represented the Union of India. 

[Read Judgment]