ORDER

16.10.2025

This order would address the appeals preferred by the appellants under Section 46 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 ( for short “the Act of 1988”) to challenge the order dated 13.11.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order (‘PAO’) and while answering the reference.

Brief facts of the case:

2. The appeal has been filed by Mr. Sadanand Kadam taken as benamidar and Mr. Anil Dattatreya Parab to be a beneficial owner of the property of the land bearing Survey No. 446 at Village Murud Dapoli. The fact on record shows that the benamidar, Mr. Sadanand Kadam was involved in Cable Network distribution business and even ventured into the hospitality business. He has claimed ownership of the alleged benami property in Village Murud Dapoli. The fact on records shows that the land in question was purchased by Mr. Anil Dattatreya Parab from Mr. Vibhas Sathe by making full and final payment of Rs.1 Crore on 12.05.2017. The Sale Deed was then executed after two years on 19.06.2019. The construction of the resort on the land was started by the beneficial owner in the year 2017-2018 itself. He became Minister in Maharashtra Government in December, 2019. The land aforesaid was sold by the beneficial owner, Mr. Anil Parab to the benamidar in December, 2020 when the news was flashed about the irregularity in construction of the resort. The land was immediately sold thereupon to Mr. Sadanand Kadam for a consideration of Rs. 1.1 Crore in 2020. Though, in the meanwhile the construction of the resort was carried out where around a sum of Rs. 5 Crores was spent. The Initiating Officer considered it to be a case of benami transaction where Mr. Anil Parab was taken the beneficial owner while Mr. Sadanand Kadam to be the benamidar. It was for the reason that the expenses towards construction on the land was incurred by the beneficial owner, Mr. Anil Parab but the land was then registered in the name of the benamidar, Mr. Sadanand Kadam. For the reason of payment of consideration on construction by the beneficial owner and the land was then registered in the name of benamidar making out a case of benami transaction under Section 2(9)(a) of the Act of 1988 as amended by the Amending Act of 2016.

3. The Initiating Officer caused notice for provisional attachment of the property and after compliance of the provisions of the Section 24(4) of the Act of 1988. The reference was sent to the Adjudicating Authority. It provided an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and passed impugned order confirming the PAO and answering the reference. The appellants are aggrieved by the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and accordingly these appeals.

Arguments of the Counsel for the appellants:

4. Ld. Counsel appearing for the beneficial owner and benamidar submitted that the Initiating Officer has wrongly taken transaction of the land to be out of the benami transaction. It has been erroneously confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. In fact, Mr. Sadanand Kadam (benamidar) intended to purchase the land in village Murud Dapoli but due to unavailability of source/fund, he made a request to Mr. Anil Dattatreya Parab to purchase the land and accordingly the land was purchased by Mr. Anil Dattatreya Parab for a consideration of Rs.1 Crore. The payment aforesaid was made on 12.05.2017 but Registered Sale Deed was executed almost after a period of two years on 19.06.2019. It was in the name of Mr. Anil Dattatreya Parab. The construction of the resort was undertaken in the intervening period of 2017- 18. According to the Ld. Counsel for the appellant the construction cost was borne by Mr. Sadanand Kadam (benamidar). It was for the reason that he alone intended to purchase the land but in absence of the availability of funds in the year 2017, it was purchased and registered in the name of Mr. Anil Dattatreya Parab on the request of Mr. Sadanand Kadam due to his close association with the b