FINAL ORDER

10.12.2025

Case of Priti Agarwal:

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant to challenge the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order.

Brief facts of the case:

2. The respondent received an information that one Shri Shiv Shankar is a person of little means, however, purchased substantial land parcels in his name. This led to an inquiry to find out whether he is actual beneficial owner of the agriculture land purchased in his name. The inquiry conducted by the Initiating Officer revealed that Smt. Priti Agarwal in connivance with her husband, Shri Sameer Agarwal has made arrangement to acquire two immovable properties in one single deed in the name of Shri Shiv Shankar. The entire consideration was paid by Smt. Priti Agarwal directly from her bank account to sellers, Shri Ram Prasad, Smt. Ganesha Devi, Shri Mool Chand and Shri Kishan Lal. It was also noticed that Shri Shiv Shankar has not made any investment rather not a single penny was routed through his bank account. The transaction between Smt. Priti Agarwal and the sellers took place between May 2019 to July 2019 whereas the bank account in the name of Shri Shiv Shankar was opened in the year 2020. At the time of purchase of the property, Shri Shiv Shankar was domestic servant of Shri Sameer Agarwal and Smt. Priti Agarwal.

3. After purchase of agriculture land, it was got converted to make it non-agriculture lands. It was thereupon sub-plotted and sold directly by Smt. Priti Agarwal using the Power of Attorney of Shri Shiv Shankar. She had even purchased 920 sq. meter land from Shri Shiv Shankar for a consideration of Rs.60 lakhs said to have been paid through 11 cheques. It was, however, found that the cheques mentioned in the Deed were for the namesake only and were never encashed. It was found surprising that the cheques referred in the purchase document dated 07.12.2020 were the same as was given in the Sale Deed dated 12.04.2019 to purchase the property in dispute. A case of benami transaction was found looking to the further fact that the sale proceeds out of the plotting of the agriculture land after conversion was directly credited in the bank account of Smt. Priti Agarwal maintained with the Central Bank of India and minor part of the sale proceeds was credited to the bank account of Shri Shiv Shankar opened in the year 2020. Finding a case of benami transaction, the PAO was caused and has been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority, thus, the appeal was preferred by Smt. Priti Agarwal for challenge to the order.

Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant:

4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant made a reference of two land parcels along with the details of the transaction for purchase of the property. It is by dividing in three parts, out of which first part was regarding the properties sold by the alleged benamidar to third parties consist of 0.1316 hectares, second part was about the property acquired by the appellant for valuable consideration involving area of 0.092 hectare and third part of the property with the alleged benamidar consists of 0.1243 hectare. The challenge to the impugned order was made mainly on the ground that the transaction in the case in hand was not falling under Section 2(9)(A) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1988”). The other argument was about the denial of the opportunity of cross-examination despite the statement of witness relied against the appellant. It was in violation of the principles of the natural justice and otherwise to be provided whenever a statement of witness is relied. In the instant case, the appellant made a prayer before the Initiating Officer to allow cross-examination of the witness but was not accepted. Thus, the impugned order vitiates on the aforesaid ground itself.

5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further argued that a sum of Rs.97.36 lakhs has been provisionally attached