HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 865 of 2011 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. We have heard Sri L.K. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Deepanshu Das, learned Counsel for the respondent- Union of India, Sri Chandra Bhushan Pandey & Sri Faizan Ali, Advocates, for the Intervener. 2. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "i) a writ, order or direction or appropriate, writ declaring the Order dated 19/10/1972, issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Lucknow as well as the Order dated 27/10/1972 issued by Custodian of Enemy Property for India (respondent No.2) as void ab-initio, inoperative and ineffective in as much as they pertain to the vesting of the management of the property of one Azmat Ehsan into Custodian on the ground of her being treated as enemy in terms of the Enemy Property Act. ii) issue a writ, order or direction or appropriate writ declaring/directing, the entire proceedings taken by the respondent no.4, which had arisen in an Appeal No. 05/7/16/35/09-10 under Section 210 of Land Revenue Act as void ab-initio. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh Kalra, Lakshmi Kant Tripathi, Sanjeev Singh, Shyam Mohan Pradhan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., A.S.G., Ankit Srivastava, Chandra Bhushan Pandey, Deepanshu Dass, Faizan Ali, Ghaus Beg, Savitra Vardhan Singh, Shiv Sharan Singh, Vaibhav Mishra Ishtiyaq Ali And Others .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Internal Security And Ors .....Respondent(s) iii) issue a writ, order or direction or appropriate writ, declaring the order dated 23/08/2010 passed byrespondent No. 4 in Appeal No. 05/07/16/35/09-10 (State vs. Ishtiaq Ali and others) as void abinitio and nonest. iv) issue a writ, order or direction or appropriate writ declaring the report of the Naib Tehsildar, Chinhat, Lucknow dated 16th September, 2005 as void and inoperative and also the order passed thereon by respondent No.4 dated September, 2005 by means of which the recommendation/ report of the Naib Tehsildar, Chinhat, Lucknow was accepted and order for expunging the names, was passed as having validly being transferred by the petitioner nos. 1 & 2; v) mandamus directing the respondents not to create any hindrance and interference in the ownership and possession of the Hasrat Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd, over the property in question. vi) issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case; and vii) award the costs of the petition to the petitioners." 3. A preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition has been raised by Sri Deepanshu Das, learned Counsel for the respondent, who says that petitioners, besides challenging other orders, have also challenged the order dated 19.10.1972 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Lucknow, and the order dated 27.10.1972 passed by the custodian of Enemy Property for India, declaring the property to be enemy property and vesting the same in the Central Government. 4. Against such order, statutory remedy under Section 18 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 is available, where a representation can be made to the Central Government. WRIC No. 865 of 2011 2 5. No such representation has been made to the Central Government and straightway the petitioner has approached the High Court. 6. It has been stated that in case the representation, if made by an aggrieved person, is rejected by the Central Government, then the remedy lies for filing an Appeal before this Court under Section 18 C of the Act of 1968. 7. This Court finds that even after exchange of pleadings and pendency of the writ petition for several years, statutory remedy has to be availed in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and another Vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti & others, reported in 2008 (12) SCC 675. 8. This petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 18 of the Act of 1968. December 15, 2025 Rahul WRIC No. 865 of 2011 3 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAHUL TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench