One cannot be classified as an enemy for working in Pakistan: Kerala High Court

A high Court bench of Justice Viju Abraham ruled on this matter while considering a petition by Ummer Koya, a native of Malappuram, who sought a declaration that his father's property should not be subject to the provisions of the Enemy Property Act of 1968. The order was passed on Monday.

Koya, a senior citizen who retired from the Kerala Police Service, recounted that his father Kunhi Koya, went to Karachi, Pakistan, in 1953 in search of a job and worked as a helper in a hotel for a brief period. Later he returned to India and passed away at 93, in Parappanangadi, Malappuram, in 1995.

The issue came up when the petitioner approached the Village Officer to pay the property tax for 2022-23, but the official refused to accept it. The village officer informed him that the tehsildar had directed him not to collect the tax on the property following the instructions of the Custodian of Enemy Property of India (CEPI). It was also disclosed that the CEPI had launched a national investigation into several properties including 60 immovable properties in Kerala.

The petitioner's father was suspected of being 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 'enemy property'.

Ummer Koya contended that due to persistent harassment by police, who labelled his father a Pakistani citizen, he sought the central government's intervention to affirm his status as an Indian citizen. It was verified that his father had not voluntarily acquired Pakistani citizenship, thereby maintaining his Indian citizenship.

Despite the central government'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.

Kunhi Koya was an Indian citizen and the bench emphasised 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.