Enemy Property (Continuance of Emergency Provision) Ordinance, 1969

 

Enemy
Property (Continuance of Emergency Provision) Ordinance [I of 1969]


Enemy
Property (Continuance of Emergency Provisions) Ordinance I of 1969–
(Continuance of Emergency Provisions) (Repeal) Ordinance–Repeal Act XLV of
1974– Ordinance 93 of 1976. All Enemy Property vested in the Custodian is
vested in Government.

This
Repealing Act in section 3(1) provides, inter alia, that all enemy property
vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property appointed under the Defence of
Pakistan Rules as continued in force “shall vest in the government”.
This section was amended by Ordinance No. 93 of 1976 which provides that the
enemy property vested in the government shall be administered, controlled,
managed or disposed of by transfer or otherwise by the Government.

With the
enactment of the Repealing Act as amended by Ordinance 93 of 1976, we find that
the property which was ‘enemy property’ under the Defence of Pakistan Rules has
become ‘vested property’ and that the Government got all powers to administer,
control and dispose of it by transfer or otherwise.

Priyatosh
Talukder vs Asstt. Custodian 39 DLR (AD) 178.

 

By
the amendment of section 3 of Act No. 45 of 1974 the entire complexion of enemy
property was changed and power was given for disposal or transfer to the
government vide section 2 of Ordinance No. 93of1976.

The
legislative process has undergone change from “preservation” of Enemy
Property to administration and disposal of the said Property under Order No. 93
of 1976.

Government
having stepped into the shoes of the Custodian by PO No. 29of1972 and Act No.
45 of 1974 cannot be heard to say that it has no power to transfer the property
in question. The Custodian has no claim to such property.

In 1976 the
Government became the sole authority and got power of disposal and transfer by
Order No. 93 of 1976.

Rahima
Akhter vs AK Bose 40 DLR (AD) 23.

 

Section 2–

Since the
law of enemy property itself died with the repeal of Ordinance No. 1 of 1969 on
23–3–1974 no further Vested Property case can be started thereafter on the
basis of the law which is already dead.

Aroti Rani
Paul vs Sudarshan Kumar Paul and others 56 DLR (AD) 73.

 

Section 3–

Ordinance
No. 1 of 1969 w315 repealed by Ordinance No. 4of1974. The Enemy Property vested
in the Custodian has been vested in the Government by repeal of rule 182 of
Defence of Pakistan Rules by Ordinance No. 4 of 1974.

Rahima
Akhter vs AK Bose 40 DLR (AD) 23.

 

Section 3–

Since the
law on enemy property itself died with the repeal of Ordinance No. I of 1969 on
23–3–74, no further vested property case can be started thereafter on the basis
of the law which is already dead.

Laxmi Kanta
Roy vs Upozila Nirbahi Officer 46 DLR 136.

 

Section 3(1) Clause 4(1)–

Vested
Property –Execution of document in an Exchange case­. After a deed of
settlement was executed by a competent officer of the Government whether it
could take the plea that the officer had acted without its authority–Under the
provisions of Act XLV of 1974 a vested property can be transferred by the
Government or by such officer as the Government may direct. The Government
having directed the ADC (Rev). to take necessary action in the matter and in
view of circulars on the subject, there is no room for doubt that the ADC was
duly authorised to execute and register the deed of settlement. The order
setting aside the deed is therefore without lawful authority.

Muzaffar Ali
vs Bangladesh 43 DLR (AD) 137.

 

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.