( 1 ) THE quashing of the order dated 22. 7. 2002 passed by the Competent Authority, (New Delhi) under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as SAFEMA) is sought for in the present writ petition. The impugned order dated 22. 7. 2002 has been passed in respect of the property bearing No. 5/34, Ram Devaji Ghali, Takhatgarh, District Pali (Rajasthan ). By virtue of the said order the said property has been forfeited under Section 7 (1) and 7 (3) of the SAFEMA to the Central Government. The petitioner is the wife of one Popat Lal who was a detenue under COFEPOSA and in view of his activities the said Shri Popat Lal was a person covered under section 2 (2) (b) of SAFEMA. The provisions of SAFEMA were applied to the said Shri Popat Lal and, accordingly, the properties allegedly illegally acquired by the said person were sought to be forfeited in view of the provisions of section 3 and 4 of SAFEMA. Admittedly, the property in question stands in the name of the petitioner and not in the name of her husband (Popat Lal ). The Sale Deed also shows that the property was purchased in the name of the petitioner. There is no dispute with regard to this fact.

( 2 ) THE issue in the present petition is whether the said property can be made the subject matter of forfeiture without the issuance of a notice under section 6 (2) of SAFEMA and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as required under section 7 (1) of SAFEMA?

( 3 ) THE respondents and in particular the Competent Authority under SAFEMA issued a show cause notice dated 20. 9. 2001 under section 6 (1) of SAFEMA to the said Shri Popat Lal. Thereafter, an order dated 22. 7. 2002 was passed by the Competent Authority under Section 7 (1) and 7 (3) of SAFEMA forfeiting the said property to the Central Government. In the said order dated 22. 7. 2002 which is impugned herein, it is clearly indicated as under:-

" A perusal of the copy of the registered deeds filed by the advocates along with the letter dated 20. 11. 01 shows that a plot was purchased for Rs. 25,000/- in Ramdevji Ki Gali, Takhatgarh, Distt Pali (Rajasthan) in the name of Kamlabai from Shri Naina Ram son of Choghaji on 10/15. 10. 84. . . . . "it was also recorded in the impugned order that it was not possible to verify the source of investment in the property in question. Paragraphs 23 and 25 of the impugned order read as under:-

"23. Therefore, it is not possible to verify the source of investment in the property mentioned in the schedule. I have gone through the records and have taken into consideration all the facts on record. I have carefully considered all the facts on record at the monitoring stage and also after the issue of notice under section 6 (1) and 7 (1) of the Act. Under the circumstances and keeping in view the non-cooperative attitude of the AP and the fact that the proceedings cannot be kept pending indefinitely, I have no alternative but to decide the case to the best of my judgment on the basis of material available on record. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 25. In the absence of any supporting evidence, I have no other alternative but to forfeit the property of the AP as mentioned in the schedule to the notice u/s 6 (1) of the Act. Hence, in view of the provisions of Section 3 (1) to (iv), the same are forfeited u/s 7 (1) and (3) of the SAFEM (FOP) Act, 1976, without any encumbrances to the Central Government. "from the above, it is clear that it is an admitted position that the property in question stands in the name of the petitioner and not in the name of the said Shri Popat Lal. It is also clear that it was not possible for the Competent Authority to verify the source of investment in the said property and that the decision of forfeiture taken by the Competent Authority was on the basis of his best judgment and in the absence of any supporting evidence. The learned counsel for the respondent has als