( 1 ) THE present petition is filed challenging Annexure-D dt. 10-1-2000 passed by the respondent and confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi, in case No. FPA No. ND3/ bom/2000/9379 as per Annexure-E dated 14-12-2001.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, she is a graduate doing real estate business in Bangalore. She was doing the said business even prior to her marriage. The petitioner married one Pakeerathan alias Ravi in the year 1990 and who died on 3-2-1997.

( 3 ) BY order of the Government of India dt. 30-9-1997 one Manivannan Mahadevan alias Ruben was ordered to be detained under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances act, 1985 (for short 'act') as he was found in possession of 23 Kgs. of heroin on 24-4- 1997. On interrogation, Manivannan, revealed that the husband of the petitioner- ravi as one of his associates and that Ravi was looking after the business of drug trafficking. In the circumstances, the properties of the petitioner were seized and a search was also conducted on the house of the petitioner on 16-7-1997. The petitioners husband Ravi died on 3-2-1997. A notice was issued to Ruben under Section 68f of the act based on the report of the Investigating officer, a copy of the same was marked to the petitioner. After receipt of the notice, she sent a reply contending that her husband died prior to the seizure of the heroin from ruben and the said Ruben in order to escape from the clutches of law has falsely implicated her husband's name and she further contended that the properties were acquired out of her business income as she was doing real estate business even prior to her marriage. She also furnished income tax returns and the agreements executed by the purchasers who have agreed to purchase the flats in respect of one of the seized properties and requested the authorities to drop the proceedings against her.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, as per Annexure-D dt. 11-1-2000, the Competent Authority declared all the properties of the petitioner as illegally acquired out of the earnings and assets derived or obtained from the activities attributable to illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and the properties were forfeited free from all encumbrances under Section 68-1 of the ndps Act and she was also called upon to surrender possession thereof to the investigating officer attached to the Competent authority within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order and further ordered that if the petitioner fails to deliver possession of the properties, action would be taken as per the provisions of Section 68u (2) of the said Act.

( 5 ) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the said order filed an appeal before the Appellate tribunal for Forfeited Property, New delhi. The Appellate Tribunal after hearing the parties has dismissed the appeal by its order dt. 4-12-2001. Challenging these two orders, the present petition is filed by the petitioner.

( 6 ) THOUGH other properties of the petitioner are also forfeited, in this petition the petitioner has confined only in respect of one property bearing No. 461, 'priya Manor', S. R. Layout, Murgesh Palya, Bangalore 17 valued at Rs. 1. 3 crores approximately consisting of 16 flats, developed by Priya Builders and Developers. Therefore, though in annexures D and E in all 11 properties are included, this Court has to decide only in regard to the property No. 3 disclosed in para 4 of the order of the Competent Authority as per Annexure D.

( 7 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Sri B. V. Acharya, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that the Competent Authority as well as the Appellate Tribunal have not considered the case pleaded by the petitioner properly. According to him, the petitioner was doing real estate business even prior to her marriage and she continued the same after marriage also. The petitioner had purchased a property at Madras during the year 1993-94 for a sum

Click Here to Read the rest of this document