903-WP-45-2026.DOC Suchitra IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.45/2026 MARIA ANGELICA FERNANDES THR POA RITESH VISHWANATH RIVONKAR … PETITIONER Versus 1. THE CUSTODIAN OF ENEMY PROPERTY FOR INDIA, Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, Kaiser - 1 Hind Building, Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400 038. 2. THE COLLECTOR, Oice of the Collector, North Goa District, Collectorate Building, Panaji, Goa – 403 001. 3. THE MAMLATDAR OF TISWADI, Oice of the Mamlatdar, Tiswadi Taluka, Collectorate Building, Opp. Municipal Garden, Panaji, Goa - 403 001. … RESPONDENTS Mr Ajay Menon and Ms M. Simoes, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr R. Chodankar, Central Government Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1. CORAM: VALMIKI MENEZES & AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ. DATED: 23rd SEPTEMBER 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Valmiki Menezes, J.) 1. Heard Mr Ajay Menon for the Petitioner and Mr R. Chodankar, Central Government Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1. Page 1 of 7 23rd September 2026 2026:BHC-GOA:1901-DB 903-WP-45-2026.DOC 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. he main challenge in this Petition is to the orders dated 08.12.2004 and certiicate of the same date issued by the Custodian of the Enemy Property, purporting to have been issued in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 8 and Section 12 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 (said Act). Further challenge is thrown to the notice dated 05.08.2025, issued by the Mamlatdar of Tiswadi, scheduling an inspection of the Petitioner’s property under Survey No.414/6 of Village Calapor on the basis that the same has been declared to be an enemy property under the said Act. 4. According to the Petitioner’s case, she purchased the property under Survey No.414/6 of Village Calapor, admeasuring 211 sq.mtrs., by Sale Deed of 24.01.1970. At the relevant time, since the land was not surveyed in terms of the Goa Land Revenue Code which came into force a year later, the property was described in the said Sale Deed as 1/6th of the property inscribed in the Taluka Revenue Oice of Ilhas, under Number One Hundred Sixty Seven. However, subsequently, when the new surveys were conducted, it was allotted Survey No.414/6 of Village Calapor with an area of 211 sq.mtrs. Mutation in Survey Records has taken place in the year 1994, in favour of the Petitioner. 5. It is further the Petitioner’s case that she received a notice dated 30.07.1996 under the Act informing her that a property by 23rd September 2026 903-WP-45-2026.DOC the name of 20, Bairre, St. Cruz, Plot No.167, area 211 sq.mtrs. which was purportedly the Petitioner’s Plot, belonged to an enemy since it was originally owned by one Deodita Cursina Antonia Rego Correia alias Cursina Rego, who was, according to the notice, a Pakistani National. he Petitioner further has averred that by reply of 14.08.1996, the Respondent No.1 was informed that the property was purchased by the aforementioned sale deed from one Deodita Cursina Antonia Rego Correia alias Cursina Rego; the fact that the said Deodita Cursina Antonia Rego Correia alias Cursina Rego was a Pakistani National has been disputed/denied by the Petitioner. he Petitioner avers that pursuant to this notice, the impugned orders dated 08.12.2004 were issued, though according to the Petitioner, the same were never communicated to the Petitioner and she has gained knowledge about the impugned orders only when she received notice of the Mamlatdar and made further inquiries under the Right to Information Act; the Petitioner was thereafter furnished the impugned orders dated 08.12.2004 on 10.11.2025, after which the present Petition was iled. 6. Mr Chodankar, on behalf of the Respondent No.1, submits that the Petitioner has an alternate and equally eicacious remedy of an appeal under Section 18 of the Act. He relies upon an order dated 13.12.2024 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur passed in the case of Saif Ali Khan Pataudi v/s. Union of India – Writ Petition No.4980/2015 with connected Petitions and an order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Pramila Digambar Naik and others v/s. Union of 23rd September 2026 903-WP-45-2026.DOC India and others – Writ Petition No.1026/2024 (F) in support of his submission. 7. he Custodian of Enemy Property has not iled any aidavit in reply but instead a counter reply has been iled by one Kamaljit A. Kamal, Deputy Secretary in the oice of the Custodian of Enemy Property. here is no supporting aidavit to this reply. his reply in substance claims that the property is an enemy property but however, there is no categorical statement made anywhere therein on the basis of any documentation from any inquiry conducted by the authority that the Vendor of the property i.e. Deodita Cursina Antonia Rego Correia alias Cursina Rego was a Pakistani National. here is no aidavit also sworn to substantiate this contention nor any document produced to substantiate this stand. he only document appended to the reply is a truncated copy of the schedule (the entire document is not annexed) where the name of one Deodita Cursina Antonia Rego Correia alias Cursina Rego is seen at Serial No.82 in relation to a property situated at Arpora, a location quite diferent from that of the Petitioner’s property which is village Calapor. However, none of these documents establish that the Vendor named in the Petitioner’s deed of sale was a Pakistani National. 8. Under Section 2(b) of the Act, ‘enemy’ has been deined as under:- “ 2(b) - "enemy" or "enemy subject" or "enemy irm" means a person or country who or which was an enemy, an enemy subject including his legal heir and successor 23rd September 2026 903-WP-45-2026.DOC whether or not a citizen of India or the citizen of a country which is not an enemy or the enemy, enemy subject or his legal heir and successor who has changed his nationality] or [an enemy irm, including its succeeding irm whether or not partners or members of such succeeding irm are citizen of India or the citizen of a country which is not an enemy or such irm which has changed its nationality], as the case may be, under the Defence of India Act, 1962, and the Defence of India Rules, 1962 for the Defence of India Act, 1971 (42 of 1971) and the Defence of India Rules, 1971], but does not include a citizen of India other than those citizens of India, being the legal heir and successor of the "enemy" or "enemy subject" or "enemy irm"]; [Explanation 1. For the purposes of this clause, the expression "does not include a citizen of India" shall exclude and shall always be deemed to have been excluded those citizens of India, who are or have been the legal heir and successor of an "enemy" or an "enemy subject" or an "enemy irm" which or who has ceased to be an enemy due to death, extinction, winding up of business or change of nationality or that the legal heir and successor is a citizen of India or the citizen of a country which is not an enemy. Explanation 2. - For the purposes of this clause, it is hereby clariied that nothing contained in this Act shall afect any right of the legal heir and successor referred to in this clause (not being inconsistent to the provisions of this Act) which 23rd September 2026 903-WP-45-2026.DOC have been conferred upon him under any other law for the time being in force;]” 9. Section 5 of the Act vests an enemy property in the Custodian while Section 11 empowers the Custodian, for the purpose of conducting inquiries into the status of a person as an enemy or any particular property that is suspected to be enemy property, to issue notices calling upon persons to furnish information in that regard. he Custodian has in fact issued a notice dated 30.07.1996 to the Petitioner under the provisions of Section 11 of the Act to which a reply was iled. However, from the record we notice that there is no speciic inding or order given by the Custodian that the Vendor of the Petitioner’s property was a Pakistani National or that the property was declared to be an enemy property after holding an inquiry and hearing the Petitioner. here is no such decision or material produced before us declaring the said Deodita Cursina Antonia Rego Correia alias Cursina Rego, the Vendor in the sale deed, to be a Pakistani National or the property to be an enemy property, after hearing the Petitioner. If this be so, the impugned orders dated 08.12.2004, both under Sections 8 and 12 of the Act, would be wholly without jurisdiction since the prerequisite for exercising jurisdiction under these provisions and for the Custodian to claim the property vests in it would require a declaration that the Vendor of the Petitioner’s property was an ‘enemy’ as deined under Section 2(b) of the Act. 10. We therefore declare the orders dated 08.12.2004 under Sections 8 and 12 of the Act to be without jurisdiction and 23rd September 2026 903-WP-45-2026.DOC consequently we quash and set aside the same. All subsequent communications, notices or orders, which follow the impugned orders would necessarily have also to be declared to be a nullity as they are based upon the impugned orders dated 08.12.2004. In these circumstances, when the challenge to the order is on the premise that the same was passed without jurisdiction under the Act, in our opinion, relegating the Petitioner to an alternate remedy of appeal would be unfair, since the impugned orders themselves are without any jurisdiction. he impugned orders being without jurisdiction, would be therefore be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and no purpose will be served to relegate the Petitioner to a remedy of appeal. 11. We therefore make Rule absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the Petition. As a consequence of Rule being made absolute, since the name of the Custodian of Enemy Property is now recorded in the Occupant’s Column of the land under Survey No.414/6 of Village Calapor, we direct that the Revenue Authorities i.e. the Mamlatdar, Tiswadi Taluka/Collector of North Goa delete the entry and restore the entry of the Petitioner’s name as it originally stood in the survey record under Form I and XIV in land under Survey No.414/6, Village Calapor. AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J. VALMIKI MENEZES, J. 23rd September 2026 Signed by: SUCHITRA NANDAN SINGBAL Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 24/09/2026 14:34:43