APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI FPA-PBPT-2567/BBS/2023 Shri Ashok Kumar Das … Appellant Versus The Initiating Officer, Bhubaneshwar … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellants : Mr. Prakash Ch. Sethi, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Anish Dhingra, Adv.

CORAM JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

24.09.2025 By this appeal, a challenge has been made to the order dated

22.02.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming provisional attachment of two properties out of five properties, for which the notice was caused to the Benamidar with a copy to the Beneficial Owner.

The present appeal has been filed by Ashok Kumar Das mainly on the ground that the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is in ignorance of the consequence of the transfer of property by the Appellant much prior to a notice under Section 24(1) of the PBPT Act, 1988 because notice was caused on 28.10.2021 while the properties were sold on 16.09.2017 itself. Thus, the provisional attachment could not have been confirmed. It is not that the fact regarding transfer of the property, alleged to be benami, was not informed to the Adjudicating Authority rather there was clear admission in regard to transfer of property thus, prayer is made to cause interference in the impugned order.

The appeal has been contested by the Counsel for the Respondent.

It is submitted that impugned order has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority after taking notice of the transfer of property where Appellant was Benamidar and purchase of property was after the amendment in the Act of 1988 by amending Act of 2016. It is taking into consideration sale of the benami property by the Benamidar to none else but the Beneficial Owner, who was party before the Adjudicating Authority. No appeal has been filed by the Beneficial Owner in whose name the property exists but appeal has been filed by Benamidar, who is as per his own statement does not own the property now. The transaction can otherwise be governed by Section 6 of the Act of 1988 and otherwise when the Appellant was not holding the title of the property, it could not be clarified as to how he is effected by the impugned order. The prayer was made to dismiss the appeal.

We have considered the rival submission of the parties. It is not in dispute that initially a notice under Section 24(1) was caused to the Benamidar on 28.10.2021 with a copy to the Beneficial Owner. The Provisional Attachment Order was thereupon caused for five properties followed by the reference to the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority denied confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order for three properties while confirming it for two properties of which transaction took place subsequent to the amending Act of 2016.

The Appellant is a Benamidar and his grievance is against the order confirming the Provisional Attachment Order though property was transferred by him in the year 2017 itself. The Counsel for the Respondent has clarified that transfer of the property by the Appellant on 16.09.2017 was to the Beneficial Owner itself. It was to wipe out the effect of Benami transaction. It was noticed by the Adjudicating Authority and in any case we don’t find reason for the Benamidar to file an appeal when according to him he is not owning the two properties of which Provisional Attachment Order has been confirmed. It is more so when Beneficial Owner was party Defendant before the Adjudicating Authority and the impugned order was passed under his notice. In the operative portion of the order, a specific reference of the sale of the property to the Beneficial Owner who was Defendant no.2 before the Adjudicating Authority is given. Taking into consideration the overall facts, the subsequent transactions seems to camouflage the benami transaction of which cognizance was taken by the Respondent. In any case we are not required to comment much on the aforesaid