The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between the retrospective and prospective application of the amended provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, and the significance of the procedural and substantive nature of the amendments.

JUDGMENT

P. R. Ramachandra Menon, J. - Writ Petitioners are the Appellants. Grievance is against the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the challenge raised against the Annexures P/1 & P/2 notices/proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (for short, ''Act of 1988'') has been repelled, holding that it is rather premature as the matter is still pending before the competent authority and only ''provisional attachment'' of the property has been ordered till the final adjudication.

2. Heard Shri Surfaraj Khan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants and Shri Amit Choudhary and Smt. Naushina Afrin Ali, the learned counsel representing the Respondents No. 1, 2 and 4.

3. The Appellants are husband and wife and they own different extents of properties in different villages acquired by utilizing the funds allegedly from their own sources. Ever since purchase/acquisition of the properties, they are stated as enjoying the same with absolute ownership, exclusive possession and clear and marketable title. While so, the Petitioners were served with Annexure P/1 notice dated 31.07.2019 issued by the 1 st Respondent to the effect that, as per the information gathered by the said Respondent, the above properties were to be held as ''benami properties'' and hence the said properties were provisionally attached, till final adjudication.

4. On receipt of Annexure P/1, the Appellants submitted Annexure P/5 reply, explaining the facts and figures. It was pointed out that all the properties mentioned in the notice, except those items which were specifically pointed out as belonging to somebody else (as disclosed from Annexure P/4), were purchased prior to the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 (for short, ''Amendment Act, 2016'') which came into force only from 01.11.2016 and hence they cannot be proceeded against. The title deeds of the properties owned by the Appellants are produced as Annexure P/3. However, the 2 nd Respondent, without any regard of the explanation offered by the Petitioners/Appellants issued Annexure P/2 order dated 27.08.2019, whereby Annexure P/1 provisional order was confirmed. This made the writ Petitioners to approach this Court by filing the writ petition seeking for a direction to quash Annexures P/1 and P/2 notices/proceedings.

5. The main challenge raised before the learned Single Judge was that the 2 nd Respondent was proceeding to ''confiscate'' the property and that the power to confiscate the property has been brought into force only as per the Amendment Act, 2016. Earlier, on establishing the facts and figures as to the benami nature of the property, the course of action available was only to have the property acquired without any compensation. The provision to ''confiscate'' the property was brought in, as per the Amendment Act, 2016, which came into force only from 01.11.2016. This being the position, the above property cannot be attached even provisionally in connection with any proceeding, as no confiscation of the property is possible. Reliance was also sought to be placed on the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Mangathai Ammal (Died) through L.Rs. and Others vs. Rajeswari and Others reported in AIR 2019 SC 2918 and on the ruling rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2915 of 2019 and connected cases holding that the amendment is only having prospective effect.

6. The prayers were opposed from the part of the Respondents pointing out that the writ petition was premature, insofar as Annexures P/1 and P/2 are only in respect of provisional attachment till the matter is finally adjudicated by the 2 nd Respondent. It is only with intent to see that no third party right is created over the properties concerned, which are prima facie found as benami properties in view of the incriminating materials/evidence collected. It was also pointed out that the judgment sought to be relied