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 reasons for suspicion of illegal acquisition suffice.

JUDGMENT :

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

The Competent Authority, Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 [hereinafter referred as “SAFEMA”] preferred this writ appeal challenging the common order dated08.04.2011 passed in W.P.No.7609 of 2001.

2. Notice under Section 6 (1) of SAFEMA was issued to Smt.Mohammed Thahaumma (Deceased) on 09.02.1976. Persons affected were S.S.A.Shahul Hameed, his wife and three sons. Reply statement was given by Mr.S.S.A.Shahul Hameed / detenu on 09.05.1977 and 16.07.1977. Court granted stay for forfeiture of property under SAFEMA on 08.08.1977 and the stay was vacated on 18.07.1994. Thereafter, personal hearing was fixed. The detenu / Mr.S.S.A.Shahul Hameed died on 17.10.1994. The wife of detenu and his three sons were brought on record. Personal hearing was held on 04.04.1995 and on 31.03.1995. The wife and sons of the detenu Mr.S.S.A.Shahul Hameed made a statement before the authorities that the properties were purchased by their father in their names. The sons of the detenu / Mr.S.S.A.Shahul Hameed clearly stated that they are not aware of the other details. However, they made a statement that the properties sought to be forfeited were purchased by their father in their names. It was made clear by the sons of the detenu that they have not invested for the purchase of the subject properties. The affected persons have not produced any document or evidence to establish that the subject properties are ancestral properties. Considering the materials available on record and based on the statement of affected persons, the Competent Authority passed an order of forfeiture under Section 7 (1) of the Act in proceedings dated 28.04.1995.

3. Pursuant to issuance of Section 6 (1) Notice, proceedings are commenced by the Competent Authority on 02.02.2000. After conducting an inquiry, the Competent Authority passed an order on 26.02.2001. The affected persons filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for forfeited property in New Delhi in F.P.A.No.66/MDS/95. After adjudication, the Appellate Tribunal ordered forfeiture of property on 31.01.2001. Thereafter, W.P.No.7609 of 2001 was filed challenging the order dated 31.01.2001. The Writ Court set aside the show cause notice dated 09.02.1977 issued under (1) of SAFEMA. Challenging the Writ Court order dated08.04.2011, the present writ appeal came to be instituted.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:

4. Mr.N.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would mainly contend that the Writ Court has not considered the spirit and the intent of SAFEMA and quashed the very 6(1) Notice itself. The procedures as contemplated under the Act had been followed scrupulously by the authorities competent. The Writ Court has not considered principles laid down by the Apex Court of India with reference to the scope of SAFEMA.

5. In the present case, it is not in dispute that Late Mr.S.S.A.Shahul Hameed was detained. Smt.Mohammed Thahaumma is the wife of the detenu. Hussain Jalal and Sheik Kamal are the sons of the detenu. Smt.Ameenath Fathima, Smt.Katheejathul Rilwana and Smt.Aysasth Zulaika are daughters of the detenu. Common order dated 28.04.1995 was passed by the Competent Authority, Madras under Section 7 (1) of SAFEMA, whereby, the properties were forfeited.

6. The order of the Competent Authority dated 28.04.1995 was also under challenge. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that it has not been served on them is incorrect. The common order dated 28.04.1995 passed by the Competent Authority, Madras under Section 7 (1) of SAFEMA was referred by the Appellate Tribunal for forfeited property in New Delhi, in its final order dated 31.01.2001. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the order dated 24.08.1995 had not served to the respondents are false and incorrect.

7. Section 6 (1) Notice under SAFEMA issued properly in compliance with the provisions of the Act. (1) Notice was not challenged b