The forfeiture proceedings under SAFEMA require strict compliance with notice provisions, and properties legally settled to relatives cannot be forfeited as illegal acquisitions.

ORDER :

Anita Sumanth, J.

W.P.No.7196 of 2001 is filed challenging an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property (Tribunal). The decision is dated 31.01.2001 and has been passed in common in the case of the Writ Petitioner and other relatives of one S.S.A.Sahul Hameed, a detenu under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA), 1974 and held to be a ‘person’ under Section 2(2)(b) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (in short ‘SAFEMA’/’Act’ ).

2. The petitioner is the daughter of the detenu and was also proceeded with on the basis that she was a ‘person’ under Section 2(2)(c) of the SAFEMA. The implication is that the petitioner is one to whom the provisions of Act would apply in terms of Section 2 thereof.

3. A notice under Section 6(1) was issued to the detenu on 09.02.1977, accompanied by an annexure that identified various parcels of land for the purpose of forfeiture under Section 5 of Act. Inter alia, the Competent Authority identified a parcel of 8 cents in S.Nos.324/1693, 1694, 1695 and 1818 (‘subject property’) as standing in the name of detenu’s wife Mohammed Daha Ummal.

4. Along with the notice, reasons were recorded, and at paragraph 11 of the reasons, there is mention of the 8 cents as aforesaid, though standing in the name of his wife Mohammed Daha Ummal. The notice under Section 6(1) contains an endorsement in conclusion, to the effect that a copy has been forwarded to a) Smt.Mohammed Daha Ummal, wife of the detenu and b) Ameenathu Fathima, daughter of the detenu, in terms of Section 6(2) of the SAFEMA.

5. While so, a separate notice has been issued under Section 6(1) of the SAFEMA to Mohammed Daha Ummal proposing forfeiture of properties alleged illegally acquired, as per the schedule thereto. The schedule contained the description of agricultural lands in Kooriyur, Mayakulam and Erwadi. Significantly, the subject property identified under the notice issued to the detenu, did not figure in the aforesaid notice.

6. Show cause notices were issued to the petitioners, in response to which, they tendered the explanation that out of the 8 cents that stood in the name of Mohammed Daha Ummal, (i) 1386 sq.ft. along with construction thereupon had been settled in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.7196 of 2021 as Sridhana, vide registered document bearing No.1164 of 1978 dated 02.08.1978, and (ii) 1245 sq.ft had been settled on the petitioner in W.P.No.7478 of 2001, as Sridhana vide document dated 04.07.1984.

7. The said documents have admittedly been produced before the authorities as well. It was thus her express submission that the land had devolved on her through her mother as Sridhana, and hence could not be made the subject matter of forfeiture under the SAFEMA.

8. Overriding the explanations tendered, the Competent Authority passed an order dated 28.04.1995 which was carried in appeal before the Tribunal. In the course of hearing, the Tribunal considered the preliminary ground of violation of principles of natural justice and passed orders dated 05.05.1998 and 16.11.1999 calling for a remand report from the Competent Authority after hearing the petitioner as well as other legal heirs of the detenu.

9. The Competent Authority took note of the submissions of the petitioner as well as others and tendered his comments on 02.02.2000, considering which, the impugned order of the Tribunal has been passed, which is assailed in these Writ Petitions. The legal issue that arises for our consideration is as to whether the procedure adopted by the authorities in this case is proper.

10. Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.S.Ramachandran, learned counsel for the petit