SUKHRAJ AND 3 OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                          WRIT - C No. - 18632 of 2026

Sukhraj And 3 Others
                                                                   .....Petitioner(s)
                                      Versus

Union Of India And 3 Others
                                                                .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)          : Akash Mishra, Dinesh Pathak, Mohd
                                     Asad Hamid
Counsel for Respondent(s)          : A.S.G.I., Shiv Kumar Pal

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 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
                                                                                                        WRIC No. 18632 of 2026
                                                                            2


                                              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.



                                                                           (Garima Prashad,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)
                                    May 12, 2026
                                    Kuldeep




Digitally signed by :-
KULDEEP SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad