Can’t call a man ‘enemy’ for working in Pakistan, says Kerala high court, junks property case

KOCHI: A high court bench of Justice Viju Abraham has ruled that merely because a man went to Pakistan in search of a job and worked there briefly does not classify him as an 'enemy' under the Defence of India Rules.
The court was considering a petition by Ummar Koya of Malappuram seeking a declaration that his father's property could not be subjected to the provisions of the Enemy Property Act of 1968.Koya, a senior citizen retired from the Kerala Police Service, stated that his father Kunji Koya went to Karachi, Pakistan in 1953 in search of employment and worked as a helper in a hotel there for a short period. Later, he returned to India and passed away at the age of 93 in Parappanangadi, Malappuram in 1995.
When the petitioner approached the village officer (VO) to pay the property tax for 2022-23, it was declined. The VO informed him that the tehsildar had instructed him not to collect the tax on the property based on the guidance of the Custodian of Enemy Property of India (CEPI). Additionally, it was revealed that the CEPI had initiated a national investigation into several properties, including 60 immovable properties in Kerala. The petitioner's father was suspected to be an enemy (a Pakistani national) under Section 2(b) of the Enemy Property Act, 1968, and consequently, the portion of the property inherited by the petitioner was also suspected to be an 'enemy property'.
Ummar Koya argued that due to continuous harassment by police authorities who branded his father as a Pakistani citizen, he had approached the central govt to determine his national status as an Indian citizen. It was confirmed that his father had not voluntarily acquired Pakistani citizenship and thus remained an Indian citizen.
Despite the central gov's contention that the petitioner's father could be classified as an 'enemy' under the Defence of India Act because he resided in Pakistan, the bench ruled that he did not fall under this definition in both the Defence of India Acts of 1962 and 1971. Kunji Koya was an Indian citizen, and the bench emphasized that the CEPI had no evidence to support allegations of trading with an 'enemy' or involvement in any business with an 'enemy firm'. Consequently, the bench quashed the CEPI proceedings and directed revenue officials to collect property tax from the petitioner.