Thiruvananthapuram: In a relief to a 74-year-old man from Malappuram in Kerala, the Kerala High Court has set aside restrictions imposed by India’s Enemy Property Officer on a piece of land he had bought from his father, who was working in Pakistan.
A single bench of Justice Biju Abraham, in its order issued on Monday, noted that a person cannot be considered as a native of an enemy country merely because he has gone there in search of work.
As many as 68 properties in Kerala have been listed as “enemy property” by the Enemy Property Commissioner of India and the High Court’s order is likely to provide relief in other similar cases as well.
Former police officer P. Umar Koya, a native of Chettipaddy in Malappuram, had approached the Kerala High Court last year after the Parappanangadi village officials in Malappuram refused to accept the 20.5 cents land rent for a piece of land he had bought from his father Kunj Koya, who had worked in Pakistan for some time.
The tax authorities argued that the land came under the jurisdiction of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 and was under investigation by the Enemy Property Officer of India because the petitioner’s father was suspected to be an “enemy” (a Pakistani national) under the Act and therefore the land was also suspected to be “enemy property”. Therefore, restrictions were imposed on the land by the Enemy Property Officer of India.
Umar, represented by advocate MA Asif, argued that his father was born in Malappuram in 1902 and was resident in India at the time the Constitution came into force in 1950. His father travelled to Pakistan in 1953 in search of work and worked briefly as a hotel helper.
Umar also said that Kunj’s father, who was pursued by police for being a Pakistani national, had approached the Centre seeking confirmation of his citizenship, and the Centre confirmed that Kunj had not voluntarily acquired Pakistani citizenship and therefore remained an Indian national. Umar argued that the property therefore could not be considered “enemy property”. Kunj also died in India and was buried in Malappuram.
The Court ordered that the petitioner’s father could not be said to be an “enemy” and the property could not be considered as “enemy property” and therefore the restrictions imposed on the land should be set aside.
Published June 26, 2024 06:55 IST
