JUDGMENT :

R. Mahadevan, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal No. 1682 of 2021:- Appeal filed under Clause 15 of The Letters Patent against the Order dated 09.04.2021 passed by the learned Judge in WP No. 2340 of 2021.)

For the sake of convenience, the judgment is divided into the following heads:

1. Questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 09.04.2021 passed by the Learned Judge in WP.Nos.35256 of 2019 etc. batch, these intra-court appeals are filed by the appellants/Department. By the order impugned herein, the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein were allowed and thereby the orders dated 26.08.2019, 27.08.2019 and 28.08.2019 passed by the first appellant/Adjudicating Authority in terms of Section 26(3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (hereinafter shortly referred to as ‘the Act’) were quashed.

2. To determine the issue involved in this batch of cases, it would be necessary to briefly narrate the facts, which are common in all the matters. For the easy reference, this court proposes to discuss the facts in WP.No.35256 of 2019 as done by the learned Judge, which would run thus:

2.1 During the year 2017, a search was conducted in the premises of Marg Group of companies and its related entities, which resulted in seizure of various documents allegedly indicating the prohibited transactions as per clause A of section 2(9) of the Act. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 26.04.2018 under section 24(1) of the Act was issued by the second appellant to the respondent herein, calling upon them to show cause as to why they should not be treated as benamidar of the parent company called M/s.Marg Limited, who is the beneficial owner of the land measuring about 17.702 acres at Muttam Village, Nagore Vattam, having been purchased in the years 2009 and 2010 by availing loan from M/s.Great Meera Finlease Private Limited, a Non-banking financial company incorporated solely for the purpose of routing the funds of Marg group of companies and such fund was also flown from the another shell company viz., M/s.Arohi Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., which is incorporated as subsidiary of M/s.Marg Limited.

2.2 On receipt of the show cause notice, the Managing Director of the respondent company appeared before the second appellant and submitted that the group companies are not the benamidars, as alleged. It was further submitted that the land was purchased in the name of group companies legitimately from and within their internal resource accrued/borrowings. The property so purchased was also mortgaged with the lenders to raise funds to complete the running projects. It was also submitted that several subsidiaries and associate enterprises were formed only with the intention to procure land for the purpose of overcoming the ceiling limit fixed under the Land Ceiling Act, 1961; and the subsidiaries were duly registered with the Registrar of Companies and complying with the filing of Income Tax Returns. Since the funds are flowing from the legitimate group companies, it will not fall within the purview of the Act. Therefore, according to the respondent company, it is not fictitious transaction, as portrayed by the Department and the same is bona fide.

2.3 Notwithstanding the reply of the respondent, the second appellant passed an order dated 20.07.2018 provisionally attaching the property of the respondent company under Section 24(4)(b)(i) of the Act pending adjudication by the first appellant.

2.4 Upon receiving the reference under section 24(5) of the Act from the second appellant, the first appellant issued a show cause notice dated 14.08.2018 under Section 26 (1) of the Act. The first appellant, after affording sufficient opportunities to the respondent and conside