Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Shri Radhey Shyam Datta – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 2028 of 2022 & CM Appls 5793 of 2022, 33985 of 2023
Decided On : 08-08-2023
SAFEM(FOP) Act, 1976 - Property Forfeiture - Plot no. C-136, Vivek Vihar, Delhi - Section 6(1), 6(2), 7(1) & (3) - The court discussed the history of the property, including the detention order against the original owner, the order of forfeiture, and subsequent sale deeds. The court found that the petitioner, a bona fide purchaser, was not given a hearing before the attachment order was passed, and the property was not available for attachment under the SAFEM(FOP) Act. The court also highlighted the delay in passing the order and the lack of intimation to the registering authority, emphasizing the rights of bona fide purchasers.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a bona fide purchaser, challenged an eviction notice issued under the SAFEM(FOP) Act, 1976, seeking forfeiture of the property in question. The petitioner was unaware of the notice until 12 years after purchasing the property. The property had changed hands through legally executed sale deeds, and the petitioner was not given a hearing before the attachment order was passed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, as a bona fide purchaser, was not given a hearing before the attachment order was passed, and the property was not available for attachment under the SAFEM(FOP) Act. The court also emphasized the delay in passing the order and the lack of intimation to the registering authority, highlighting the rights of bona fide purchasers.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, as a bona fide purchaser, was entitled to challenge the eviction notice and the order of forfeiture under the SAFEM(FOP) Act, 1976.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, as a bona fide purchaser, was not given a hearing before the attachment order was passed, and the property was not available for attachment under the SAFEM(FOP) Act. The court also emphasized the delay in passing the order and the lack of intimation to the registering authority, highlighting the rights of bona fide purchasers.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the Notice dated 08.09.2021 was set aside. Pending applications, if any, also stood disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J.
1. The Petitioner, who is a bona fide purchaser of a property bearing No. C-136, Vivek Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-110095 (hereinafter referred to as `the property in question'), has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition challenging the Eviction Notice dated 08.09.2021 issued by the respondent No.2/SDM Vivek Vihar seeking eviction of the Petitioner from the property in question.
2. It is pertinent to mention herein that Respondent No.2 has issued the Eviction Notice dated 08.09.2021 pursuant to Order of forfeiture dated 23.03.2017, issued by the Office of Competent Authority under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 [hereinafter referred to as `the SAFEM (FOP) Act, 1976'], against one Jagdish Mitra, who was the original owner of the property in question. It is stated by the Petitioner that the property in question has changed several hands by means of registered sale deeds before ultimately being purchased by the Petitioner vide a registered sale deed dated 20.07.2009. It is stated by the Petitioner that at the time of registration of the sale deed, there was no impediment/notice that the property in question could not be sold or that any interest in the said property could not be created because of the notice issued under the SAFEM (FOP) Act, 1976.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the present case and history of the property in dispute are as follows:
a) Plot no.136, Block-C, Jhilmil Tahirpur Residential Scheme, Delhi-110032 was purchased by Mr. Jagdish Mitra on 06.02.1971 from Delhi Development Authority on behalf of President of India.
b) In the year 1975 a detention order was passed against Mr. Jagdish Mitter under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as `the COFEPOSA') was issued by the Ministry of Finance, Depart of Revenue & Insurance, New Delhi. Whereafter, a Show Cause Notice dated 30.03.1976 was issued in his name in accordance with section 6(1) of the SAFEM (FOP) Act, 1976, calling upon Mr. Jagdish Mitter to explain his source of income from which his assets/properties under scrutiny, have been acquired.
c) Subsequently, an order dated 27.04.1977 under section 7(1) of the SAFEM(FOP) Act, 1976 was passed forfeiting two properties and exempting one from the purview of forfeiture. The two properties forfeited were as under:
I. House property No. 68-69, J.J. Colony, MotiBagh II, New Delhi.
II. Plot of Land No. C-136, Jhilmil, Tahirpur, Residential scheme Delhi.
d) It is the Plot of Land No. C-136, Jhilmil, Tahirpur, Residential scheme Delhi (now known as Vivek Vihar) which is the subject property before this court.
e) Aggrieved by the order of forfeiture dated 27.04.1977, Mr. Jagdish Mitra filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal of Forfeited Property (hereinafter referred to as ATFP). The ATFP vide order dated 23.05.1978 set aside the order of forfeiture dated 27.04.1977 passed under section 7(1) of the SAFEM(FOP) Act, 1976 by observing that the appellant therein/Mr. Jagdish Mitter was not given reasonable opportunity of being heard and directed the Competent Authority to pass a fresh order after hearing the appellant, in accordance with law, after a supplementary reply to notice under section 6(1) SAFEM(FOP) Act, 1976 has been filed by the appellant therein. The supplementary reply was filed by Mr. Jagdish Mitter on 02.06.1978.
f) During the course of the ongoing proceedings, as stated above, a Civil Writ Petition No.1175/1978 was filed by Mr. Jagdish Mitter before this Court challenging notice issued under section 6(1) SAFEM(FOP) Act, 1976 dated 30.03.1976 and the order of the ATFP dated 23.05.1978. The vires of the SAFEM(FOP) Act, 1976 Act along with 39th, 40th and 42nd amendments to the Constitution of India were also challenged in the Writ Petition.
The writ petition was heard and allowed vide order dated 06.05.1985 whereb
Bona fide purchasers have rights under the SAFEM(FOP) Act, 1976, and must be given a hearing before attachment orders are passed. The lack of intimation to the registering authority and the delay in ....
A bona fide purchaser cannot claim rights to property transferred during ongoing forfeiture proceedings under SAFEMA, as the vendor lacked title to transfer.
Transferee's good faith acquisition protects property from forfeiture under SAFEMA if purchased before the show cause notice was issued.
Notice under SAFEMA can be issued to relatives of the convict, not just the convict themselves, and delays in proceedings do not invalidate the actions taken.
Notice under Section 6(1) of SAFEMA to relatives suffices; delay in inquiry does not invalidate proceedings.
The court clarified that the issuance of Section 6(1) notice under SAFEMA does not require establishing a direct nexus between the detenu and properties unless they are held by relatives; mere reason....
The issuance of notice under SAFEMA does not require establishing a definitive nexus between the properties and illegal activities; prima facie evidence suffices for initiating proceedings.
The issuance of a notice under Section 6(1) of SAFEMA does not require establishing a direct link between the properties and the detenu; prima facie reasoning suffices for forfeiture proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
