Satish Chandra Das vs Union of India and Ors

Hon''ble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas

The Court :

The petitioner in this WP under art. 226 dated December 21, 2011 is questioning a decision of the office of the Custodian of Enemy Property for India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India dated September 20, 2011 (at p.47) that he is not entitled to any benefit under the resolution of the Ministry of Foreign Trade of the Government of India dated March 15, 1971 (at p.49).

The resolution dated March 15, 1971 was taken by the Ministry of Foreign Trade of the Government of India for giving some relief to the Indian nationals, companies, etc. whose assets in Pakistan were seized by the Government of Pakistan during and after the Indo-Pakistan Conflict of September 1965 and who notified their losses to and filed claims with the Custodian of Enemy Property for India. The Custodian of Enemy Property for India was to function ordinarily under the Enemy Property Act, 1968.

The resolution of the Government was that an interim relief in the form of ex-gratia grants from the Consolidated Fund of India at the rate of 25% of the value of the verified claims, restricted to a maximum of Rs.25 lakh in each case, would be made to all Indian nationals and Indian companies against a bond to be executed by the recipients; and that if, in any case, the limit exceeded, it would be decided on merit; and further that the payment would be taken into account and adjusted when the properties concerned would be restored to the Indian nationals, companies, etc. concerned by the Government of Pakistan in terms of the Tashkent Agreement or when any amount would become payable to them on that accounts.

The case of the petitioner is that he left the then East Bengal after independence leaving behind the properties particulars whereof have been given in para.3 of the WP; and that in view of the policy of the Government of India under the Enemy Property Act, 1968 and the rules and regulations framed thereunder, he submitted several representations and letters to the office concerned of the Custodian of Enemy Property for India, but that he was not paid any monetary compensation for the property.

From the impugned decision it appears that the petitioner approached the office of the Custodian of Enemy Property for India for the first time by a letter dated March 30, 2010, and that he wanted benefit of the resolution dated March 15, 1971.

It has been mentioned in the decision that the office of the Custodian of Enemy Property for India repeatedly requested the petitioner to produce materials to show that he had applied seeking benefit of the resolution on or before July 31, 1977 that was the final cut off date fixed for submission of claims in terms of the resolution dated March 15, 1971; and that the petitioner did not produce anything to show that he had lodged any claim under the resolution on or before July 31, 1977.

The office of the Custodian of Enemy Property for India has turned down the claim on the grounds that the petitioner could not approach the office after July 31, 1977; and that the advertisement dated April 8, 2011 referred to by the petitioner was published concerning matters under the Enemy Property Act, 1968.

There is nothing to show that the petitioner lodged any claim under the resolution dated March 15, 1971 on or before July 31, 1977. I do not find any merit in the argument that since no cut off date was mentioned in the resolution, the office of the Custodian of Enemy Property for India could not turn down the petitioner''s claim citing the date or any other cut off date.

I do not find any merit either in the argument that the Additional Solicitor-General of India producing a document to show that the cut off date extended three times was finally fixed for July 31, 1977 must be directed to say so by filing an affidavit.

A WP under art. 226 is not to be entertained as a matter of course. It is to be admitted only if it discloses a prima facie case. The petitioner has not produced anything to show that he lodged any claim under the resolution before March 30, 2010.

Besides, the resolution is very clear and there is no reason to say that it covers also a case such as the one of the petitioner. The petitioner''s own case is that he migrated from the then East Bengal immediately after independence; and that while leaving East Bengal he left the immovable properties mentioned in para.3 of the WP.

The resolution applies only to the cases of Indian nationals, companies, etc. whose assets in Pakistan were seized by the Government of Pakistan during or after the Indo-Pakistan Conflict of September 1965.

It is not the petitioner''s case that his assets in Pakistan owned by him as an Indian national were seized by the Government of Pakistan during or after the Indo-Pakistan Conflict of September 1965. Hence seeking benefit of the resolution he could not lodge any claim referring to his immovable properties he had left while leaving the then East Bengal long before September 1965. He lodged an absolutely unentertainable claim.

For these reasons, the WP is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.