WPA 9042 of 2023 Form No. J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA WPA 9042 of 2023 MARIAM BEGUM AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. For the Petitioners : Mr. Debasis Sur, Mr. Subhasish Bhattacharjee. For the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 : Sukumar Bhattacharyya, Ms. Indrani Chakraborty. Heard on : 16.09.2026, 18.09.2026 Judgment on : 18.09.2026 Uploaded on : (In court) AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.: 1. This is the second round of litigation. In the earlier writ petition, the petitioners have challenged a notice dated 07.04.2021 affixed to the premise in question by the Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property for WPA 9042 of 2023 India, Calcutta Branch office declaring that the property was enemy property. 2. The specific case of the petitioners is that by virtue of registered deed of conveyance dated 22nd July, 1970 before the District Registrar, Alipore, one Sushil Kumar De occupied the property in question. The said Sushil Kumar De died intestate leaving behind his sons and daughters as his legal heirs and successors. Subsequently, the legal heirs also expired leaving their respective legal heirs, who became the joint owner of the property. 3. One co-owner Md. Bahaluddin executed a deed of gift dated 17.07.2017 in favour of the petitioners and, therefore, petitioners acquired title and possession and were peacefully living at the property in question. After hearing the parties, the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.02.2022 directed the writ petitioners to submit fresh representation before the concerned Authority in terms of Section 18 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 as amended (in short, ‘the said Act’). The learned Judge further directed the concerned authorities to consider and dispose of the representation within a period of two months in terms of Section 18 of the said Act from the date of receipt thereof after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the interested parties including the petitioners in accordance with law. Page 3 of 6 WPA 9042 of 2023 4. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioners made a representation before the concerned authority and, thereafter, the said representation was considered after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and necessary parties and finally an order was passed on 6th February, 2023. 5. By the said impugned order, it was held that the applicants have submitted their representation jointly after lapse of the prescribed period of limitation of 30 days and since there is no provision in the said Act to condone the delay of submission of representation. The representation dated 18.02.2022 was rejected on the ground of delay and laches. 6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order impugned, the petitioners filed the present writ petition contending that the property belonging to the petitioners does not come under the purview of enemy property and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India and other respondents, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the prayer of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and further submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as the provision for appeal before the High Court under Section 18C of the said Act, specifically provided that any person aggrieved by any order passed under Section 18 of the WPA 9042 of 2023 said Act, may, within a period of sixty days from the date of communication or receipt of the order, file an appeal to the High Court. 8. The learned Counsel further relied upon a judgment passed by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPA/8250/2025 (Maimur Rahaman & Ors.-Vs.- The Union of India & Ors.) to support his contention that the petitions may avail remedy only under Section 18C of the said Act. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed giving an opportunity to the petitioners to avail remedy in accordance with law. 9. Having heard the submission of the learned Counsels for the respective parties and upon perusal of the provision stipulated in the said Act particularly Section 18 and 18C, this court is of the view that there is specific provision for filing appeal u/s 18C against any order passed under Section 18 of the said Act. Those provisions are quoted hereinbelow:- “18. Transfer of property vested as enemy property in certain cases.—The Central Government may, on receipt of a representation from a person, aggrieved by an order vesting a property as enemy property in the Custodian within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of such order or from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette, whichever is earlier and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard, if it is of the opinion that any enemy property vested in the Custodian under this Act and remaining with him was not an enemy WPA 9042 of 2023 property, it may by general or special order, direct the Custodian that such property vested as enemy property in the Custodian may be transferred to the person from whom such property was acquired and vested in the Custodian. 18C. Appeal to High Court.- Any person aggrieved by an order of the Central Government under section 18 of this Act, may, within a period of sixty days from the date of communication or receipt of the order, file an appeal to the High Court on any question of fact or law arising out of such orders, and upon such appeal the High Court may, after hearing the parties, pass such orders thereon as it thinks proper: Provided that the High Court may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing an appeal within the said period, allow it is to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days. Explanation.—In this section, “High Court” means the High Court of a State or Union territory in which the property referred to in section 18 is situated.” 10. Furthermore, upon perusal of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, is also on the same view that the petitioners may approach by way of an appeal under Section 18C of the said Act before the High Court. 11. With the above observation, WPA/9042/2023 is, thus, dismissed. Connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 12. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case although affidavit has been exchanged between the parties since WPA 9042 of 2023 the writ petition is disposed of on the ground of maintainability. Dismissal of this writ petition will not preclude from availing the provision of appeal before the High Court, if so advised along with the application for condonation of delay explaining the same in accordance with law. 13. All parties are to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of the Calcutta High Court. 14. Urgent xerox certified copy, if applied for by the parties, same shall be supplied upon compliance of the necessary formalities. (AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.) Srimanta