JUDGMENT :

1. A common challenge has been made in these three writ petitions and accordingly, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioners have assailed the orders issued under Section 24 (4) (6) (i) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the notice passed under Section 24 (1), inter-alia-attaching the properties of the petitioners provisionally until passing of the order by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 26 (3) of the Act. The primary contention of the petitioners is that an incorrect and illegal conclusion has been arrived at by the authorities that the petitioner no. 1 in each of the three cases were benami holders of property or its beneficiary. The grounds of violation of the principles of natural justice have also been taken as, according to the petitioners, their replies were not properly considered and they were not given an effective opportunity to defend themselves. Allegation of recording the statement of the petitioners in duress has also been made.

3. Though the aforesaid issues would have required a detailed deliberation, this Court has been informed that recently a development has taken place in the form of a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court taking a cue of which, these writ petitions can be disposed of without going deep into the merits of the dispute. However, for the sake of convenience, the basic facts of these writ petitions may be narrated as follows.

WP(C)/4385/2022

4. There are two petitioners in this case. The petitioner no. 1 is one Shri Banamali Das against whom, the allegation is of being a benami holder and the petitioner no. 2 is one Shri Bhagya Kalita, who is the beneficial owner. It has been projected that two plots of land were purchased by the petitioner no. 1 in the years 2009 and 2015 and thereafter, warehouses were constructed on the same and those were given on lease. On 31.01.2022, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (BP), Guwahati had issued summons to the petitioner no. 1 directing him to attend and submit certain information in connection with proceedings under the Act. Thereafter notices were issued to the petitioner no. 1 to appear before the authorities for recording of statements in connection with a proceeding under Section 19 of the Act and ultimately, such statements were recorded before the respondent authorities on 25.03.2022. However, on 30.03.2022 show cause notice under Section 24 (1) of the Act was issued followed by the order of attachment dated 31.03.2022 under Section 24 (3). Thereafter various communications were exchanged between the parties whereby the petitioners had requested for providing copies of the purported statement which were extracted by coercion. In the meantime, time was sought for by the petitioners to reply to the show cause notice. Ultimately, the petitioners had to file WP(C)/3246/2022 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.05.2022 allowing the petitioners to submit their replies to the show cause notice dated 30.03.2022 within a period of 10 days and it was further clarified not to give effect the attachment order in view of the clear undertaking given by the petitioners that the process will start afresh from the stage of procedure laid down in Section 24 (1) of the Act. Subsequently, the petitioners submitted their replies by contending that the impugned action was without jurisdiction and therefore, nu and void. Finally, the authorities vide the impugned order dated 15.06.2022 had passed an order of attachment of the properties and assets till the passing of the order by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 26 (3) of the Act.

WP(C)/4387/2022

5. There are two petitioners in this case. The petitioner no. 1 is one Shri Sailen Das against whom, the allegation is of being a benami holder and the petitioner no. 2 is one Shri Bhagya Kalita, who is the beneficial owner. It has been projected that two plots of land were purchas