Allahabad High Court
WRIC/18632/2026 of SUKHRAJ AND 3 OTHERS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS on 11 May 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 18632 of 2026 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J. 1. Heard Mr. Dinesh Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shiv Kumar Pal, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the Union of India. 2. Petitioners
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 18632 of 2026
Court No. - 40
HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard Mr. Dinesh Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shiv Kumar Pal, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the Union of India.
2. Petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 26.02.2010 have filed the present writ petition.
3. At the outset, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India submits that there is remedy under Section 18 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 by filing a representation against the impugned order before the competent authority.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had no knowledge about the impugned order. He further submits that the petitioners came to know about the said order in the instructions placed by the respondents in Writ-C No.42097 of 2025 in which this Court has passed the following order: "1. Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India is allowed two weeks' time to bring on record the order passed by the District Magistrate and if any other order passed under the Enemy Property Act declaring the property or otherwise treating the land in question to be enemy property.
2. Shri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel may also Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akash Mishra, Dinesh Pathak, Mohd Asad Hamid Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Shiv Kumar Pal Sukhraj And 3 Others .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
obtain necessary instructions in the above.
3. Put up this matter on 17.02.2026.
4. In the meanwhile, no third party rights shall be created in respect of the property. "
5. Accordingly, it is submitted that there was no delay in filing the writ petition against the impugned order.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts, we dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioners to prefer a representation under Section 18 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 before the competent authority designated in the said section within a period of one month from today. In case such a representation is filed by the petitioners, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same on merits without entering into the question of limitation within a period of three months from the date he receives such representation. For a period of four months or till the final decision is taken on the representation of the petitioners, whichever is earlier, the petitioners shall not be evicted from the property in question. May 12, 2026 Kuldeep WRIC No. 18632 of 2026 2 (Garima Prashad,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- KULDEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad