The burden of proof lies on the affected person to establish the legality of property acquisition in forfeiture proceedings under COFEPOSA and SAFEMA.

ORDER :

(Order of the Court was made by M.JOTHIRAMAN , J.)

Under assail is the order dated 14.07.2000 passed by the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Nos.FPA Nos.26&27/MDS/96 and confirming the order of the Competent Authority passed in F.No.OCA/MDS/145/76 dated 10.01.1996.

2. Since the issues involved in the present writ petitions are one and the same and hence both the writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order.

3. The writ petition in W.P.No.19837 of 2000 was filed by Mr.K.T.M.S.Abdul Karim and the writ petition in W.P.No.19838 of 2000 was filed by Smt.M.R.K.S. Ameena Ummal, wife of the petitioner in W.P.No.19837 of 2000. During the pendency of the writ petitions, both the writ petitioners were died. Thereafter, their legal representatives were substituted.

4. The case of the petitioners is as follows:

Mr.K.T.M.S.Abdul Karim (deceased) went to Ceylon in the year 1949 for earning and returned to India in the year 1953. He was having savings of about Rs.10,000/-. He married Mrs.Ameena Ummal in the year 1954. At the time of marriage, he had received 30 sovereigns of gold from his Mother as gift. He was doing Paddy business between 1962 to 1968. He had sold 30 sovereigns of gold and also sold his ancestral properties. He was also doing dry fish business and had purchased a Jeep from M/s.T.V.S. & Sons, Madurai on hire purchase scheme during 1967-1968. The father-in-law of the petitioner was doing business at Srilanka and he was also helping him and his wife. He was detained under COFEPOSA Act during Emergency time. The Competent Authority issued a notice dated 13.07.1976 under Section 6(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, proposing to forfeit the immovable properties. Out of the five immovable properties, the first item of the property stands in the name of his wife and therefore, the Competent Authority issued a notice to her under Section 6(2) of the said Act. After receiving notice, he had sent a letter dated 09.08.1976. Thereafter, a reply notice was sent on 18.8.1976 to the above notice, stating that the properties were acquired out of the legal income earned from legal sources. The wife of the petitioner is the absolute owner of the 1^st item of property and the entire value of the properties themselves are about Rs.22,750/-. The petitioner did not indulge in smuggling activities. He had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.3007/77 before this Court, challenging the proceedings initiated against him. The Competent Authority forfeited the properties by its order dated 10.01.1996. He had filed an appeal before the second respondent. Similarly, his wife also filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited property, the 2^nd respondent herein by its common order dated 09.01.1997, granted interim stay of the forfeiture of the properties in Item Nos.1 and 2. The appeals were posted for hearing on 19.11.1999 at Hyderabad. Subsequently, the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited property by its impugned order dated 16.02.2000, dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution and it was dispatched on 21.2.2000. On 18.5.2000, the Tashildar-Tiruvadanai Taluk, asked him to handover the possession of the property. Immediately the petitioners have preferred a Petition to restore the appeals before the 2^nd Respondent. The petitioners were filed writ petitions in W.P.No.8688/2000 and W.P.No.8689/2000 before this Hon’ble Court for a direction to the second respondent to restore the appeal and to dispose of the appeal on merits. This Hon'ble Court was pleased to allow the writ petition on 7.6.2000 and directed the 2^nd Respondent to hear the appeal on merits within 60 days. Thereafter, the Appellate Tribunal heard the appeal and by its order dated 14.7.2000, has confirmed the order of the Competent Authority forfeiting the property. But the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Petition filed by him to receive additional documents in M.P.75/MDS/2000 since it was filed belatedly.Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have pre