The main legal point established in the judgment is the protection of bonafide purchasers under Sec.2(2)(e) of SAFEMA and the significance of preparatory steps for property transactions in determining the validity of the transaction.

Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorari to quash the Proceedings of the Respondent in F.No.OCA/MDS/1747/78 dated 110. 2003 confiscating the property bearing Door No.7/1, Richi street, Mount Road, Chennai-2 u/s.7(1) of Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 [for short SAFEMA].

2. In nutshell, case of the Petitioner is as follows:-

(i) Petitioner purchased the property bearing Door No.7/1, Richi street, Mount Road, Chennai-2 by sale deed dated 111. 1978 from Sulaika Beevi wie of Sheik Dawood for a consideration of Rs.18,000/- and Petitioner was put in possession of the property. Prior to purchase, Petitioner has obtained permission from Reserve Bank of India on 14. 1978 approving the sale since Petitioners vendor Sulaika Beevi was native of Malysia.

(ii) It is the further case of the Petitioner that she is a bonafide purchaser for value and she has taken care to verify the title of the property before getting the sale deed. Sec.2 (2)(e) protects the bonafide purchaser of any property from auction being taken under the provisions of SAFEMA . The impugned order of confiscation of the property was passed behind the back of Petitioner and that she is not aware of COFEPOSA detention order passed against Sheik Dawood. According to the Petitioner, she is in possession of the property and has paid house tax, property tax and is the rightful owner.

(iii) The impugned order is challenged on the ground that the property was purchased by the Petitioner on 111. 1978 even before passing order u/s.7(1) by the Respondent in the year 1995. Respondent ought to have considered the fact that since Petitioner is bonafide purchaser in good faith and her right is protected under the provisions of Sec.2 (2)(e) of SAFEMA and the provisions of the Act itself is not applicable and excludes the transaction by bonafide purchaser and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable.

3. Respondent has filed counter stating that notice u/s.6(1) of SAFEMA was issued to the person affected viz., Sulaika Beevi as early as on 210. 1978. As per the provisions of Sec.11 of the said Act, after issuance of notice u/s.6, any property referred in the said notice, if transferred such transfer shall be ignored and the property be subsequently forfeited to the Central Government. According to the Respondent/Department, transaction with the Petitioner having been taken place after issuance of notice u/s.6(1) of the Act to the vendor viz., Sulaika Beevi the transaction of purchase carried out by the Petitioner with the vendor is null and void.

4. Challenging the impugned order Mr. S. Pichai, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Sec.2(2)(e) protects the bonafide purchaser and the order of forfeiture passed u/s.7(1) of the Act behind the back of Petitioner is unsustainable. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further urged that Petitioner is exclusively excluded from the operation of protection of the Act. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Sulaika Beevi wife of detenu has purchased the property on 01. 1973 long prior to COFEPOSA Act coming into force and therefore, in the absence of any live link and nexus between the property and the illegal money, Sec.6(1) notice is vitiated. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that in any event applying Sec.9, explanation was not called for from the Petitioner and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

5. Drawing attention of Court to the dates and events, Mr.S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi, Addl.Central Government Standing Counsel for the Respondent contended that Petitioner has purchased the property after issuance of Sec.6(1) notice and therefore by operation of Sec.11 , the transaction is to be ignored. Placing reliance upon AIR 1998 SC 484 [Aamenabai Tayebaly and others v. Competent Authority under SAFEMA and others] and unreported Judgment in W.P.No.15017/1999, learned Addl.Central Government Standing contended that any transfer after issu