India
Allahabad High Court Blocks State’s Attempt to Halt Construction on Muzaffarnagar Plot
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the state cannot stop construction on a 90‑square‑metre plot in Muzaffarnagar simply by labeling it as “enemy” or “evacuee” property. The court found that the authorities had failed to produce any records showing the land was formally recorded as either type of property. Consequently, the court restrained the state from interfering with the owners’ possession and construction that had been sanctioned by a municipal map.
The dispute centers on a plot in Civil Lines South, Muzaffarnagar. The petitioners trace ownership through a chain of transactions back to 1946, beginning with Nawab Mohammad Sadakkat Ali Khan. The property was later transferred via exchange deed, gift deed and family settlement. A 1956 civil court decree declared Surendra Prakash the exclusive owner. After his death, the property passed to the first two petitioners, who sold 90 square metres to the other petitioners through a registered sale deed in 2018. The petitioners obtained a sanctioned construction map in August 2018 and began developing a commercial complex.
Authorities had previously received complaints that the land was enemy property. An inquiry by the District Magistrate in November 2018 and a rejection by the Muzaffarnagar Development Authority in January 2019 dismissed one such complaint. However, in January 2023 state officials halted construction, partly demolished the work, and marked the property as “Nishkrant Sampatti” (evacuee property). The state argued that the original owner had become a Pakistani resident after Partition, allowing the land to be treated as enemy property under the Enemy Property Act, 1968, or as evacuee property under the 1950 Act.
The court noted that an order by the Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property on 2 August 2019 had already recorded the land as not enemy property. The Custodian’s counter affidavit confirmed that the property had not been recorded as enemy property in official records. The court therefore rejected the state’s reliance on a 19 January 2019 communication that attempted to classify the land as enemy property.
Regarding the evacuee property claim, the state had not produced any documents showing the land had ever been formally recorded as such. A 2021 letter referenced a 2020 communication, but that communication was not presented to the court. The court cited the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, which requires formal procedures and publication of lists to identify evacuee properties. Without such documentation, the state’s allegation was insufficient to justify stopping construction.
Justice Vivek Saran and Justice Prakash Padia held that a mere allegation is not enough to halt construction. The sanctioned map remained valid, and the development authority had not taken action against the petitioners. The court relied on the Custodian’s counter affidavit, treating it as an admission that the property was not enemy property.
The high court therefore restrained the state from interfering with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and occupation of the 90‑square‑metre portion for which construction had been sanctioned. The order does not direct removal of any signage and does not extend beyond the approved map. No costs were imposed, and the petition was allowed.