IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, M.JOTHIRAMAN
Pyari Ben (Deceased) – Appellant
Versus
Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petitions filed against property forfeiture. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on legal error in evidence handling. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. assessment of property source validity. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. burden of proof under safema. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. conclusion and confirmation of forfeiture. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
ORDER :
1. These petitions have been filed to calling for the records of the first respondent passed in F.P.A.Nos.48 & 49/MDS/95 dated 29.11.1999 and quash the same. The unsuccessful appellants before the Tribunal have preferred these writ petitions before this Court. Since the issues involved for 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. Pending writ petitions, the petitioner died and her legal heirs were substituted as parties.
2. The case of the petitioners is as follows:
The deceased first petitioner's husband late Sri.R.Yusuf Khan was arrested and detained under the provisions of maintenance of Internal Security Act and thereafter the first petitioner's husband was arrested under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Ex
M/s. Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Union of India and others
The burden of proof lies on individuals affected by forfeiture proceedings under SAFEMA to establish legitimate sources of income for property acquisition.
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.
A bona fide purchaser cannot claim rights to property transferred during ongoing forfeiture proceedings under SAFEMA, as the vendor lacked title to transfer.
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.
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.
Notice under Section 6(1) of SAFEMA to relatives suffices; delay in inquiry does not invalidate proceedings.
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....
The issuance of a notice under Section 6(1) of SAFEMA does not require establishing a direct link between the properties and the detenu; prima facie reasoning suffices for forfeiture proceedings.
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.