The government does not have ownership of enemy properties, and thus can’t seek exemption from paying municipal taxes like, the Supreme Court has ruled. The order by the two-judge Bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan came on appeal filed by the Lucknow Municipal Corporation against an order by the Allahabad High Court.
In its order, the HC had ruled that the Lucknow Municipal Corporation could not demand property tax from assesses in occupation of an enemy property.
For the uninitiated, the Indian government took over the ownership of movable and immovable assets left behind by the people who left India after the Indo-China war of 1962 and the India-Pakistan wars of 1965 and 1971. These properties, spread across several states in India, are known as enemy properties. The Custodian of Enemy Property for India (CEPI), an office established under the Defence of India Act, 1939, is in charge of enemy properties in India. Through the Custodian, the Centre is primarily in possession of all enemy properties in India.
While impugning the judgment of the High Court said that the Custodian is appointed only to protect the property and to manage it as a trustee and not as an owner by vesting in the Custodian free from all encumbrances. “By that, the Union cannot assume rights of ownership over such property through the Custodian,” it said.
“When the Custodian appointed by the Central government in whom enemy property vests is only a trustee and does not adorn the status of an owner of such enemy property, consequently, the Central government or the Union even within the meaning of Article 285 of the Constitution cannot usurp the ownership of such property,” the apex court said.
When an enemy property is not the property of the Union within the meaning of Article 285 of the Constitution, there is no exemption from taxes imposed on by a state or by any authority within a state, it added.
| Got any questions or point of view on our article? We would love to hear from you. Write to our Editor-in-Chief Jhumur Ghosh at [email protected] |
An alumna of the Indian Institute of Mass Communication, Dhenkanal, Sunita Mishra brings over 16 years of expertise to the fields of legal matters, financial insights, and property market trends. Recognised for her ability to elucidate complex topics, her articles serve as a go-to resource for home buyers navigating intricate subjects. Through her extensive career, she has been associated with esteemed organisations like the Financial Express, Hindustan Times, Network18, All India Radio, and Business Standard.
In addition to her professional accomplishments, Sunita holds an MA degree in Sanskrit, with a specialisation in Indian Philosophy, from Delhi University. Outside of her work schedule, she likes to unwind by practising Yoga, and pursues her passion for travel.
[email protected]
Related Posts
SC upholds HUDA’s rejection of highest bid for Gurgaon tower.
Have complied with order, deposited interest: Unitech to SC.
SC stays amendment in Delhi Master Plan 2021, says ‘dadagiri’ has to stop.
Land acquisition: SC sets aside two decisions of Haryana government.
SC asks Jaiprakash Associates to deposit Rs 100 crores by May 10, 2018.
SC asks parties who have challenged Land Acquisition Act provisions to frame specific questions to be answered by 5-judge bench.
