JUDGMENT :

K. KUMARESH BABU, J.

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, prays to set aside the order made in Rev.No.194 of 2012 in W.P.No.18185 of 2012, dated 10.04.2014.

This Writ Appeal is directed against the order made in Rev.No.194 of 2012 in W.P.No.18185 of 2012, dated 10.04.2014.

2. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant had purchased a property bearing site number 119 and 120 of Vinayagapuram layout, Thottipalayam Village, in S.No.766(part), T.S.No.494(part), measuring and extent of 6600 square feet in the year 1992. The property was originally belonged to one Saraswathi wife of M.Swaminathan. The said Swaminathan was detained under the provisions of Smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators (forfeiture of property) act 1976. Various properties belonging to the said Swaminathan and his wife Saraswathi allegedly were found to be purchased by ill gotten money and hence proceedings were initiated as to why the properties should not be forfeited. The competent authority under the act by his order dated 31st July, 1996 issued orders forfeiting two of the properties in T.S.No.484 & 494 at Rayavaram extension, Thottipalayam, Tirupur belonging to the said Swaminathan and Saraswathi respectively. They being aggrieved have preferred a statutory appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi. The Tribunal after considering the submissions made, dismissed the appeal by its order dated sixth of July 2000. However taking into consideration the appellant's request that in the lieu of payment of fine one of the property may be released as provided under section 9 (1) of the said act, the Tribunal has ordered payment of fine and on such payment declaration of forfeiture made under section 7 (1) in respect of site bearing number 494 Rayavaram extension, Thottipalayam, Tirupur, be vacated and the property released. By proceedings in July 2000, the competent authority under section 19 (1) had forfeited the property of said Swaminathan in TS No 484 of Rayavaram extension, Thottipalayam, Tirupur.

3. However, a notice of auction, describing the property purchased by the petitioner in TS No. 494, Rayavaram extension, Thottipalayam, Tirupur, was issued claiming that the said property has been forfeited. Immediately the appellant had preferred a writ petition challenging the same. On recording the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Competent Authority that they did not intend to bring the property in T.S.No.494 for sale, as only the house site in T.S.No.484 of Rayavaram extension, Thottipalayam, Tirupur, belonging to Swaminathan was only forfeited, the Single Judge disposed of the writ petition, as no further adjudication was necessary. A Review Petition was filed by the Competent Authority/1st respondent herein alleging that the description of property was given by the said Swaminathan and the discrepancy in the description of property came to light only when actual possession was taken over by the revenue authorities. Hence, the mistake has occurred inadvertently by making a representation that the authority did not intend to proceed with T.S.No.494 Rayavaram extension, Thottipalayam, Tirupur and they intend to deal with only property in S.No.484, Rayavaram extension, Thottipalayam, Tirupur. and sought to review the order. The Learned Judge, by the impunged order, has allowed the review and dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal.

4. Heard Mr. B. Kumar Learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S. Prabhu on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.V.Chandrasekaran, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent.

5. The learned Senior Counsel drew our attention to the notice of the 1st respondent dated 22-06-1978 issued under Section 5(1) of the SAFEMA calling upon the predecessor in title of the appellant whereunder various properties were sought to be forfeited. He further drew our attenti