Asadulla Chowdhury, J. - (1.) This Rule is directed against the order dated 23.11.73 passed by the J.L.R.O. by which certain property recorded in favour of one Nasiruddin Ahmed, son of Dedar Box, was directed to be vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India, in terms of the MInistry of Commence Notification dated 10.9.65 read with Sections 5 and 24 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968. The properties in question belonged to one Nasiruddin Ahmed, son of Dedar Bux, the petitioner's father. It is the case of the petitioner that he got this property by a deed of gift from his father Nasiruddin and since 1963 he has been possessing three acres of land in plot No. 2546 in khatian No. 1833 of Mouza, Gorabazar. Mr. Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the impugned order of vesting passed by the J.L.R.O. was without jurisdiction inasmuch as there was no order prior to 10th July, 1968 by which the property was vested as enemy property in pursuance of the Notification dated 10th November, 1965. He relied upon the decision of this Court in In that case a single Judge of this Court held that an order vesting certain properties alleged to be enemy property in the Custodian of Enemy Property made on January 7, 1969 after the expiry of the period of emergency on July 10, 1968 has no application to the facts of that case. Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the Respondents contended that under Sections 5 and 24 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 even on the expiry of the Defence of India Act, 1962 and Defence of India Rules, 1962 all enemy property vested before such expiration in the Custodian of Enemy Property and continuing to vest immediately before the commencement of the Act shall vest in the Custodian. In 1965 a notification was issued in exercise of the sowers conferred by Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 133(v) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. The Defence of India Act expired on 10th July, 1968. By the said Notification dated 10th September, 1965, the Central Government ordered that all immovable property in India belonging to or held by or managed on behalf of all Pakistani National shall vest in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India with immediate effect. It appears from the materials placed before me that before 1968 there was no finding that the impugned property belonged to a Pakistani National and unless there was a specific order in terms of the said Notification the property of a Pakistani National could not be continuing to vest in the Custodian of Enemy Property in terms of Section 5 of the Act. In order to attract section 5 of the Act it must be shown that there was an order by which the properties were declared to be enemy property and without such an order the property could not have vested as an Enemy Property in the Custodian of the Enemy Property for India. In view of the above, the J.L.R.O. has got no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order declaring that properties belonging to the petitioner shall vest as an Enemy Property in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India.
(2.) In the result, this Rule is made absolute. The impugned order is quashed. Let a Writ of Mandamus be issued directing the Respondents not to give effect to the said impugned order. There will be no order for costs. Let the operation of the order remain stayed for a period of four weeks from date.;