The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that civil courts lack jurisdiction over disputes involving enemy property vested under the Enemy Property Act, 1968, as amended in 2017. The judgment underscores that aggrieved parties must approach the Central Government through a representation, rather than seeking redressal through civil litigation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Mohd. Alam, filed a civil suit before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar, seeking a declaration regarding a disputed property. The trial court dismissed the suit on 30.10.2025, holding that the property in question was classified as enemy property under the Enemy Property Act, 1968, and had vested in the Central Government. The court further observed that, under Section 18-B of the Act, civil courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters, and the petitioner should instead file a representation before the Central Government.
Key Facts
- The petitioner instituted Original Suit No. 2383 of 2015 before the trial court, seeking a declaration regarding the disputed property
- The trial court dismissed the suit on 30.10.2025, holding the property to be enemy property vested under the Enemy Property Act, 1968
- The court relied on Sections 18 and 18-B of the Act, which bar civil courts from entertaining disputes over enemy property
- The Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2017 was cited to reinforce the vesting of such properties in the Central Government
- The petitioner was directed to approach the Central Government through a representation if aggrieved
Procedural History
- 2015: Petitioner files Original Suit No. 2383 of 2015 before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar
- 30.10.2025: Trial court dismisses the suit, holding the property as enemy property and the civil court as lacking jurisdiction
- 2026: Petitioner files Writ Petition No. 5311 of 2026 under Article 227 before the Allahabad High Court, challenging the trial court's order
- 29.04.2026: High Court dismisses the writ petition, upholding the trial court's findings
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the trial court's order dated 30.10.2025 and a declaration that the civil court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute over the property. Alternatively, the petitioner sought directions to the Central Government to decide his representation expeditiously.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the High Court was whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for declaration involving property classified as enemy property under the Enemy Property Act, 1968, or whether such disputes must exclusively be resolved through a representation before the Central Government.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner's counsel argued that the trial court erred in dismissing the suit on jurisdictional grounds. They contended that the Enemy Property Act, 1968, does not explicitly bar civil courts from adjudicating disputes over enemy property and that the petitioner had a legitimate claim to the property. The counsel further submitted that the remedy of approaching the Central Government was inadequate and dilatory, depriving the petitioner of a fair and expeditious resolution.
For the Respondent
The learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the Union of India and other respondents, argued that the trial court's order was legally sound. Relying on Sections 18 and 18-B of the Enemy Property Act, 1968, and the Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2017, the counsel submitted that the property in question had vested in the Central Government, and civil courts were expressly barred from entertaining such disputes. The respondents further contended that the petitioner's remedy lay in filing a representation before the Central Government, as provided under Section 18 of the Act.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court, after perusing the material on record and hearing the parties, upheld the trial court's order. The Court observed that the Enemy Property Act, 1968, as amended in 2017, clearly vests enemy property in the Central Government and bars civil courts from exercising jurisdiction over such matters. The Court relied on Section 18-B of the Act, which states:
"No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie in any civil court or before any other authority in respect of any enemy property."
The Court further noted that Section 18 of the Act provides a remedy for aggrieved parties to file a representation before the Central Government. The Court held that the trial court had correctly dismissed the suit, as it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The High Court emphasized that the legislative intent behind the Enemy Property Act was to centralize the administration of enemy properties under the Central Government, thereby excluding the jurisdiction of civil courts.
The Court also distinguished the present case from general property disputes, highlighting that enemy property is a special category governed by specific statutory provisions. The judgment underscored that the Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2017 had strengthened the vesting of such properties in the Central Government, leaving no room for civil court intervention.
The Verdict
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order dated 30.10.2025. The Court held that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as the property in question was enemy property vested under the Enemy Property Act, 1968. The petitioner was left to avail the remedy of filing a representation before the Central Government under Section 18 of the Act. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Civil Courts Have No Jurisdiction Over Enemy Property
- Practitioners must note that Sections 18 and 18-B of the Enemy Property Act, 1968, as amended, explicitly bar civil courts from entertaining disputes involving enemy property
- Any suit or legal proceeding filed in a civil court regarding enemy property is liable to be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, as the Act vests exclusive authority in the Central Government
- The judgment reinforces that the Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2017 has further solidified the Central Government's control over such properties, leaving no scope for judicial intervention
Representation Before Central Government Is the Exclusive Remedy
- Aggrieved parties must file a representation before the Central Government under Section 18 of the Act, as this is the only available remedy for disputing the classification or vesting of enemy property
- The judgment clarifies that the remedy of approaching the Central Government is not merely an alternative but the exclusive avenue for redressal, and civil courts cannot entertain such disputes even under Article 227 of the Constitution
- Practitioners should advise clients to exhaust this administrative remedy before exploring any other legal recourse, as judicial forums are barred from intervening
Legislative Intent and Statutory Interpretation
- The judgment highlights the legislative intent behind the Enemy Property Act to centralize the administration of enemy properties under the Central Government, thereby excluding civil court jurisdiction
- Courts will strictly interpret the provisions of the Act, and any attempt to bypass the statutory bar by filing a civil suit or writ petition is likely to fail
- The Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2017 has been interpreted as strengthening the vesting of enemy properties in the Central Government, leaving no ambiguity regarding the exclusion of civil courts
