On Saturday (22nd July), the Nanital administration bulldozed 134 illegal structures on King Mahmudabad’s enemy property in the Metropole locality of Nainital city of Uttarakhand. Six JCB machines were used in the operation.
Five Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) companies, eighty sub-inspectors and 150 women constables ensured law and order were maintained during the demolition. The property is believed to be worth ₹300 crores.
Prior to the operation, the district administration issued notice to the illegal occupants of the property and instructed them to vacate the houses. Following the notice, the encroachers approached Uttarakhand High Court seeking relief, but their plea was dismissed.
The High Court instructed the encroachers to vacate the premises, effective immediately. Despite evacuation notice from the administration and orders passed by the High Court, many encroachers did not vacate the premises to the point bulldozers started demolishing the illegal houses.
Before demolition, the administration red-crossed the illegal structures, marking them deemed for demolition. It also served as a clear sign of the administration’s intentions and a final notice to the encroachers.
Islamists and leftists outrage
Propaganda journalist Sadaf Afreen said, “Houses of 134 families demolished. The families said they had been living there for 110 years. Several generations lived on that land. The government did not provide alternate accommodations for the families whose houses were demolished. Most of the families were from minority communities. The government did not take time to demolish houses of 134 families.”
The argument presented by Afreen was factually incorrect. The government has served notices multiple times to the encroachers to leave the enemy property. Not an inch of the land belonged to them.
The matter was heard in the SDM court and then the High Court upheld the decision of the SDM court to demolish the illegal structures. Notably, the High Court refused to pass orders that might promote illegality. Furthermore, illegal encroachers have no right to get alternate accommodations.
Quoting Afreen, controversial RJ Sayema said, “Demolishing houses is past time of the government these days. Shameful.”
‘Journalist’ Ahmed Khabeer wrote, “The pain of helplessness and hopelessness in Uttarakhand. Altogether 134 houses built on King Mahmudabad’s enemy property in Uttarakhand’s Nainital, were demolished by the district administration on Saturday.”
Activist Shuja wrote, “Why are we not talking about Uttarakhand? The demolishing of houses of 135 families, mostly Muslims, of Nainital’s metropole began on Saturday morning.”
Congress Minority SM convenor Telangana Asma wrote, “In Nainital, 134 Muslim families are facing eviction from their homes in the Metropole area, where they have been living for decades, as the BJP government has declared their land illegal property and disconnected their electricity.” Interestingly, Asma ignored the fact that they were encroachers that too on enemy property.
Founder of controversial organisation, Miles 2 Smile, Aasif Mujtaba said, “Imagine the pain of this girl from #Nainital whose house were bulldozed amidst flood and upcoming winter. A total of 134 houses were bulldozed today citing “Enemy Property Act”. Most of the inhabitants are minority #Muslims.”
High Court refused to pass orders that might promote illegality
An order was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) court instructing encroachers to vacate the enemy property that they had occupied for years. The SDM court gave ample time to the encroachers to submit documents and argue why they continued encroaching on the land despite the fact that the government had taken over the custody of the land in 2010.
High Court noted that the encroachers failed to submit even a shred of document that might support the continuity of encroachment for over a decade. OpIndia accessed the judgment dated 21st July 2023 by Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Rakesh Thapliyal.
In the orders, the High Court noted that the encroachers argued, as per Rule 5 of the Enemy Property Rules, 2015, the Custodian is bound to offer an agreement in Form 4 to the occupants. However, the court deemed it meritless as the exact words used in the said rule are “the Custodian may serve a notice directing them to enter into an agreement with the custodian in Form 5…”
The court noted that the word ‘may’ cannot be read as ‘shall’ in the context in which it is used. The court said, “The Legislature has consciously used the word ‘may’, in contradistinction with the word ‘shall’, in the same Rule, which leaves no manner of doubt that the Custodian is not under a statutory obligation to offer the agreement in Form 5 to the occupants.”
Pointing out that the encroachers were illegally occupying the land, the court said that petitioners who come to the Court with clean hands and seek relief the court protects them.
However, “it is well settled that, in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction, the High Court would not pass orders, which protect and promote illegality. The High Court would not pass orders which have the effect of perpetuating an illegality. The continued possession of the petitioners over the property in question is completely illegal since the same vests in the Custodian of enemy property, and the petitioners have no right, title or interest thereon.”
The number of encroachers increased from 116 to 134 since 2010
Notably, Advocate General SN Babulkar and Chief Standing Counsel CS Rawat appearing for the state of Uttarakhand, pointed out that when the government took custody of the enemy property in 2010, there were 116 encroachers. The government took over all the property. However, the number will increase to 134 by 2023. The state informed the court that all these were illegal occupants and requested the court to order an immediate evacuation.
Encroachers refused to give in writing they would vacate the premises in ten days
As per reports, as the encroachers sought relief from the demolition drive scheduled for 22nd July, the court gave an option to the encroachers that if they gave in writing that they would vacate the premises in ten days, the court would stay the demolition drive for that period. However, the encroachers refused to give it in writing, and the court dismissed the plea. Following the court’s orders, many families living illegally on the enemy property left on Friday (21st July evening).
Enemy Property Act, 1968
It is an Act of the Parliament of India that enables and regulates the appropriation of property in India owned by Pakistani nationals. The Parliament passed it after the 1965 war between India and Pakistan. The ownership of such properties is transferred to the Custodian of Enemy Property for India, which is a department of the Government of India.
Emeny Properties of Raja of Mahmudabad
The property in question belonged to Mohammad Amir Mohammad Khan, a Pakistani citizen popularly known as the Raja of Mahmudabad. His father, Mohammad Amir Ahmed Khan, who was then-Raja of Mahmudabad, left India and shifted to Iraq. Eventually, he took Pakistani citizenship in 1957 and soon shifted to London, where he died in 1973. Since 1974, Raja of Mahmudabad has been fighting a legal battle with the Government of India not to term his property as ‘enemy property’. The seized properties are located in Lucknow, Sitapur and Nainital.