The Bombay High Court stayed the stop-work notice issued by the Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property to AA Corp and allowed the development of over 4,950 square meters of the plot at Thane.
A division bench of justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar on February 2, however, clarified that the development undertaken will be subject to final outcome of the petition.
The HC was hearing a petition filed by AA Corp challenging the stop-work notice issued on December 17, 2021, by the Assistant Custodian Of Enemy Property For India under the Enemy Property Act, 1968, since a part of the property, on which construction is undertaken, is devolved on a Pakistani national or his heirs.
Virag Tulzapurkar, counsel for AA Corp, argued that only 1/4th of the larger property, which is 1650 sq meters, would be affected. Challenging the stop-work notice, Tulzapurkar said that they were willing to deposit Rs 3.26 crore without any prejudice.
He further contended that the developer will make necessary application representation to the Custodian/Assistant Custodian on all points, including that the enemy property is not more than 1/4th of the larger property.
The court noted that they would have to be “mindful that the statutory duties, concerns and obligations of the Custodian and the Committee under the Enemy Property Act are not in any way compromised.”
Advait Sethna and DP Singh, counsels for the Custodian, argued that the Custodian cannot determine the value of the land. It is to be determined by the Committee under the Enemy Property Act. Hence, the deposit of Rs 3.26 crore will have to be without prejudice to the rights of the Committee to call for a larger deposit if it believes this to be required.
Tulzapurkar gave an undertaking that in case the Committee decides that a higher amount needs to be deposited, then they were willing to deposit the difference as well.
Sethna further contended that if the construction was permitted to go on, then it might result in an irreversible situation on the ground. This could “seriously compromise” what the Committee and the Custodian may then be able to do in regard to the land itself.
Terming the “concern” as “valid, the court has said: “… if the Petitioners choose to carry on work on-site, they do so on their risk and without the right to claim any equities in regard to the extent of work done or the amount of money spent.”
“Further, should the Committee or the Custodian so require, it will be the obligation of the Petitioners to return the land to its original condition at their cost,” the court further clarified.
Tulzapurkar agreed with the conditions.
The HC has directed the developer to deposit Rs 3.26 crore within one week with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court on or before 11th February 2022, which would then be invested.
The HC has directed the Prothonotary and Senior Master not to disburse this amount without specific court orders.
The court has asked the Custodian to hear and decide that representation at the earliest possible, latest by March 11.
The court has kept the matter for further hearing on March 15.
