Cabinet may clear new enemy property law
In view of the promise made by the government to bring afresh the controversial Enemy Property (Amendment & Validation) Act, 2010 during the Winter Session of the Parliament, the Union Cabinet is likely to clear the proposed legislation at its meeting on Wednesday.
The government, which introduced the bill in the Lok Sabha during Monsoon Session, had to withdraw the legislation amidst stiff opposition from the Samajwadi Party and the Rashtriya Janata Dal and allegations and counter-allegations levelled by ruling Congress and the Opposition BJP.
Sources in the government informed that the proposed legislation was high on the agenda of the meeting of the Union cabinet, which would be chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
“Last week too, the matter was listed for approval. But the Cabinet could not take it up as the minister concerned was not present,” they said.
The new bill, as it has been re-worked, steers clear of the controversy, providing a middle path where court verdicts prior to the legislation’s enactment, which were in favour of the legal heir, would be honoured, but the fresh legislation would not be allowed.
Any enemy property divested from custodian (read Central government) to any person before the commencement of the proposed act shall continue to vest in the custodians, the draft bill says.
But it provides respite to those who have won favourable verdict from courts.
Sources, while quoting from the draft bill, said, “If the enemy property was divested from the custodian by a valid order made before July 2, 2010, or where it had been returned to the owner or his lawful heir by an order of the court and the government is satisfied that the property was returned to the owner or lawful heir, such enemy property would continue to remain with such persons.”
Since the government had decided to withdraw the bill, home minister P. Chidambram informed the Lok Sabha that after extensive discussions, members had sought more time to study the amendments along with the Ordinance that was issued on July 2.
Post new comment