A Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Ashish S. Chavan, in a judgment dated 22 September 2025, set aside the 2010 vesting order passed under the Enemy Property Act, 1968, and the 2024 rejection order by the Ministry of Home Affairs, in the case of Lotus Classique Housing Society vs Union of India.

Timeline of Events

1944–1971: Legitimate Ownership & Development

• Land at Vidyanagar, Margao (Survey No. 157/4) was purchased in 1944.
• In 1969, the property was transferred by gift deeds to Badruddin Hussenbhai Mavani, who was born in Goa in 1923.
• He executed powers of attorney in 1970 and 1971 in Goa, authorising subdivision and sale.
• Town planning approvals followed, and between 1977 and 1981, multiple registered sale deeds were executed for the subdivided plots.

1997–2010: CEPI Steps In Based on Local Complaints

• In 1997, CEPI issued notices under Section 11 of the Enemy Property Act after receiving a local complaint claiming Mavani had migrated to Pakistan.
• On 8 October 2010, CEPI declared the property as “enemy property” under Sections 5 and 24, relying on old letters and hearsay — not official records.

2020–2024: Owners Fight Back

• The housing society filed a representation to the Ministry of Home Affairs in September 2020, attaching birth certificates, sale deeds, and development records proving ownership.
• On 12 November 2024, the Ministry rejected the representation, citing the 2017 Amendment and Validation Act, which retrospectively nullifies transfers of enemy property.

2025: High Court Strikes Down the Orders

• The Court found no documentary proof that Badruddin Mavani was a Pakistani national between 11 September 1965 and 18 December 1971 — the critical vesting window under the Defence of India Rules.
• Local reports and vague references to a case in Pakistan were deemed insufficient.
• The bench held that without establishing enemy nationality, the Custodian had no jurisdiction to vest the property.
• The Court also noted violations of natural justice, as the 2010 order was passed without giving current owners a fair hearing.

Why This Ruling Matters

1. Burden of Proof on Govt:
   The State must prove enemy status with credible records — not hearsay or complaints.
2. 2017 Amendment Not a Blanket Shield:
   The Court clarified that the Amendment doesn’t fix a jurisdictionally defective vesting. If the original declaration is flawed, it can be struck down even today.
3. Ripple Effect:
   Many properties across Goa, Mumbai, and other states were declared “enemy properties” decades ago using vague reports. This judgment gives affected owners a clear legal path to challenge such declarations.
4. Real Estate Clarity:
   For homebuyers and societies living under CEPI claims, this judgment restores ownership certainty and could trigger re-examination of archival CEPI lists.

The Court’s Stand

“Merely on an assumption that the holder of this property had migrated to Pakistan and just because there is a citation in the law report in his name, is not a proof that Badruddin was a Pakistani National… it cannot form the basis of declaration of the subject property as Enemy Property.” — Bombay High Court (Goa Bench)

Also Read: Dharavi Redevelopment: Bombay High Court Rules in Favor of Adani, Rejects UAE Firm’s Plea

The post 📰 Hearsay Can’t Make You Pakistani: Bombay HC Quashes Enemy Property Tag appeared first on Square Feat India.