The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sale transaction during the pendency of forfeiture proceedings becomes null and void, and the appeal filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation cannot be condoned.

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.03.2013 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi, in MP20/BOM/2011 (Condonation of Delay) and prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 01.08.2008 passed by the Competent Authority, SAFEMA, Mumbai, whereby, residential house of the petitioner situated at House No.53B, Bansidhar Park Society, Naroda, Ahmedabad, is ordered to be forfeited. The petitioner has also prayed to quash and set aside the order of sealing of said house and all other consequent orders. Pursuant to the above referred orders and the property, the petitioner has also prayed to stay operation, implementation and execution of the above impugned orders during the pendency of this petition. However, Considering the issue regarding forfeiture of the property and concurrent findings of the two authorities, while hearing the matter for admission, both the sides have agreed to decide it finally so as to save repeated arguments initially for admission and for final hearing. Therefore, both the sides are heard for final hearing of the matter. Hence, Rule. Mr. K.T. Dave, learned counsel waives service of Rule.

2. The sum and substance of the petition is to the effect that there is no delay in filing of appeal, and if at all, there is any delay, it is only in refiling the appeal as per prescribed format. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any delay in filing the main appeal, thereby, the order of rejection of appeal on the ground of delay is improper and illegal. It is submitted that in fact, appeal is filed in time, but because of the office objections, appeal was not numbered and only office objections were with reference to not filing the appeal in prescribed format, and ultimately, whatsoever delay considered for dismissing the appeal is only for removal of such office objections by filing a fresh memo of appeal in prescribed format. It is, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the technical delay for removal of office objections, as delay in filing the appeal, though there was no delay in filing the appeal. It is also submitted that in fact, there is gross delay by the Tribunal itself in not deciding the appeal from the year 2009 till the year 2013 at every stage, and even not delivering the impugned orders after final hearing, and as against the delay of 45 days after removal of office objections, therefore, the delay could have been condoned. It is further submitted that the provisions of Limitation Act are not expressly excluded the provisions of Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (for short, “SAFEMA”), and, therefore, the Tribunal could have condoned the delay.

3. Even though no such ground was agitated before the Tribunal and though such ground was agitated in the petition to declare the provisions of the Act as vires, the petitioner has contended that the prescribed period of limitation being 45 days is grossly inadequate since the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the entire Nation and people has to come from far distant places and, thereby, the original limitation of 45 days is not sufficient. It is also contended that after filing of appeal in prescribed format, the Tribunal had taken 190 days in informing the petitioner regarding office objections, and, thereby, to resend the appeal in prescribed format. Therefore, it is contended that while considering the total days of delay such 190 days cannot be counted as delay on the part of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in treating the date of refiling of appeal in prescribed format as the date of filing of appeal, which is contrary to the record and rules, because the date of refiling of appeal in prescribed format, is not the actual date of filing of the appeal, but it is merely a date of removal of office objections, whereas, the date of fling of appeal is certainly within the period of limitation. It is,