NEW DELHI: Can the government stop construction on a property merely by claiming that it is “enemy property” or “evacuee property”? The Allahabad high court recently made some observations while hearing a dispute over a 90-square-metre plot in Muzaffarnagar. The court found that the authorities had not produced records showing that the property was formally recorded as either enemy or evacuee property and restrained them from interfering with the owners’ possession and construction covered by a sanctioned map.What was the dispute over the property?According to the court order, the property was part of a plot in Civil Lines South, Muzaffarnagar. The petitioners claimed ownership through a chain of transactions going back to 1946.The property was initially owned by Nawab Mohammad Sadakkat Ali Khan. It was later transferred through an exchange deed, gift deed and family settlement. A civil court decree in 1956 declared Surendra Prakash the exclusive owner of the relevant property. After his death, the property devolved on the first two petitioners, who sold 90 square metres to the other petitioners through a registered sale deed in 2018.The petitioners obtained a sanctioned construction map in August 2018 and started developing a commercial complex.Why did the authorities stop the construction?Several complaints were made alleging that the land was enemy property. An inquiry by the District Magistrate rejected one such complaint in November 2018. Another complaint was rejected by the Muzaffarnagar Development Authority in January 2019.However, in January 2023, state officials stopped the construction. The petitioners alleged that officials later partly demolished the construction and marked the property as “Nishkrant Sampatti”, or evacuee property.The State argued that since the original owner had become a Pakistani resident after Partition, the property could be treated as enemy property under the Enemy Property Act, 1968 or as evacuee property under the earlier 1950 law.But the counsel appearing for the Custodian of Enemy Property told the court that the property was not enemy property.What is enemy property?The Enemy Property Act, 1968 covers property belonging to, held by or managed on behalf of an “enemy”, “enemy subject” or “enemy firm”.The high court noted that an order passed by the Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property on August 2, 2019 had already recorded that the relevant land was not enemy property. It also noted that the Custodian’s own counter affidavit said the property had not been recorded as enemy property in official records.“Thus, once the order dated 02.08.2019 had been passed by the Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property, the reliance placed by the State-respondents on the communication dated 19.01.2019 to treat the property in question as enemy property, is misplaced and has no relevance at all,” the court noted.The court therefore rejected the State’s reliance on the earlier communication to justify treating the property as enemy property.What about the claim that it was evacuee property?The State also claimed that the disputed land had been evacuee property since 1947.The high court, however, found that the State had not produced documents showing that the property had ever been formally recorded as evacuee property. A 2021 letter referred to an earlier 2020 communication, but that communication itself was not placed before the court.The court also noted that the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and the rules framed under it set out a procedure for identifying and recording evacuee properties, including the publication of lists.“Since the respondents State has not brought on record any such document, which would refer the property in question either registered as an evacuee property or any such proceedings are still pending for its registration etc., mere allegation would not suffice and the action of the State respondents for stopping the constructions work on the land in question, where the map has been sanctioned, cannot be justified,” the bench observed.This became a key reason for the court to reject the State’s stand.Can authorities stop construction merely by making such a claim?A bench of Justice Vivek Saran and Justice Prakash Padia of the Allahabad high court said that a mere allegation was not enough.The court also noted that the development authority’s sanctioned map remained valid and that the authority itself was not proceeding against the petitioners.The court also relied on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Custodian of Enemy Property, which the bench treated as an admission. The affidavit stated: “as per official records the said property in dispute has not yet been recorded as Enemy Property in the records of the respondent herein.”The court found that the material placed before it did not establish that the property was enemy or evacuee property.The high court restrained the respondents from interfering with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and occupation of the property.The protection was limited to the 90-square-metre portion for which construction had been sanctioned. The court allowed the petition and imposed no costs. Its operative direction is the restraint on interference, and the order does not separately direct removal of the signage. In effect, the order protects the petitioners on the sanctioned portion and does not extend to any construction beyond the approved map.