IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr.Justice S.M.Subramaniam, Mr. Justice M.Jothiraman, JJ
M.R.K.S.Abdul Kareem @ Pallakku (Deceased) – Appellant
Versus
Competent Authority, Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators, (Forfeiture of Property Act), UTSAV – Respondent
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 sove
The burden of proof lies on the affected person to establish the legality of property acquisition in forfeiture proceedings under COFEPOSA and SAFEMA.
The burden of proof under SAFEMA lies with the affected person, and failure to discharge this burden justifies property forfeiture.
The burden of proof lies on individuals affected by forfeiture proceedings under SAFEMA to establish legitimate sources of income for property acquisition.
Notice under SAFEMA can be issued to relatives of the convict, not just the convict themselves, and delays in proceedings do not invalidate the actions taken.
A bona fide purchaser cannot claim rights to property transferred during ongoing forfeiture proceedings under SAFEMA, as the vendor lacked title to transfer.
Notice under Section 6(1) of SAFEMA to relatives suffices; delay in inquiry does not invalidate proceedings.
The Appellate Authority must reconsider the forfeiture of properties under SAFEMA, ensuring the petitioners can present evidence of legal acquisition.
The absence of a clear nexus between illegal activities and property acquisition invalidates forfeiture under SAFEMA, and the burden to prove lawful acquisition lies on the appellant.
The issuance of notice under SAFEMA does not require establishing a definitive nexus between the properties and illegal activities; prima facie evidence suffices for initiating proceedings.
The court clarified that the issuance of Section 6(1) notice under SAFEMA does not require establishing a direct nexus between the detenu and properties unless they are held by relatives; mere reason....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.