THE VICE CHAIRMAN, EAST PAKISTAN ENEMY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT BOARD
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of East Pakistan, which invalidated two notifications issued by the Vice-Chairman of the East Pakistan Enemy Property Management Board and the Additional Custodian of Enemy Property. The notifications declared the Hanuman Rice and Oil Mills as enemy property and authorized the Deputy Commissioner of Dinajpur to manage it. The respondents, who claimed an interest in the mills through a partnership formed with a previous purchaser, challenged the notifications, asserting the property was not enemy property. The High Court ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring the notifications issued without lawful authority. The petitioners contend that the High Court erred in its determination regarding the status of the property as enemy property under the Defence of Pakistan Rules, particularly given the circumstances surrounding the previous owner's departure to India. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the disputed mills constitute enemy property under the Defence of Pakistan Rules, ordering the existing stay to continue pending the final hearing.
- Whether the Hanuman Rice and Oil Mills constitutes enemy property under the Defence of Pakistan Rules?
- Does property acquired through a court decree for specific performance vest in the Custodian of Enemy Property if the transferor subsequently leaves for India?
- Sub-rule (1) of Rule 182, Defence of Pakistan Rules
- Paragraph 4, Enemy Property (Custody and Registration) Order 1965
- Article 98, Constitution of Pakistan 1962
ORDER
1. M. R. KHAN, J.-The Vice-Chairman, East Pakistan Enemy Property Management Board, Dacca (petitioner No. 1) issued a Notification on the 18th July 1968, under sub-rule (1) of rule 182 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, declaring that Hanuman Rice and Oil Mills (formerly known as Suihari Rice and Oil Mills) in the District of Dinajpur being an enemy property, the same along with its assets shall vest in the Additional Custodian of Enemy Property in East Pakistan (petitioner No. 2).
2. On the same day, the petitioner No. 2 issued another Notification under paragraph 4 of the Enemy Property (Custody and Registration) Order, 1965, authorizing the Deputy Commissioner of Dinajpur (petitioner No. 3) to take such measures as might be necessary for the preservation of the said mills and to manage and carry on the trade and business of the mills.
3. The validity of these two Notifications was challenged by the respondents herein in a writ petition under Article 98 of the 1962-Constitution in the High Court of East Pakistan. It was stated in the writ petition that Suihari Rice and Oil Mills formerly belonged to one Purnendu Narayan Roy Deb Barma.
4. In the year 1956 he contracted to sell the mills to Chiranjiv Lai Sharaf. The latter filed a suit in 1962 for specific performance of that contract and obtained a decree. In pursuance of that decree, he obtained a kabala in respect of the mills through Court on the 5th October 1964. Subsequently on the 1st December 1967, Chiranjiv Lal Sharaf formed a partnership with the present respondents Nos.
5. 1 to 3 in respect of the said mills. This partnership was registered with the Registrar of Firms on the 3rd February 1968. The respondents claimed to have acquired interest in the mills in question on the strength of the said partnership and denied the same to be an enemy property.
6. A Division Bench of the High Court accepted the writ petition and declared the impugned orders to have been made without lawful authority. The petitioners now seek special leave to appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court.
7. According to the petitioners, Chiranjiv Lai Sharaf left for India in early February 1968, after disposing of his other properties in Pakistan and since then he has been staying in India. The respondents did not dispute that since February 1968, the whereabouts of Chiranjiv Lal Sharaf were not known.
8. Mr. K. A. Bakr, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the background of the facts of this case the High Court was not correct in holding that the disputed mills is not an enemy property and that it did not vest in the Additional Custodian of Enemy Property. The question whether the disputed mills is an enemy property or not under the Defence of Pakistan Rules deserves consideration. Leave is accordingly granted to consider this question. Stay already granted shall continue. The appeal shall be made ready for hearing in the next session.