Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(ATFP) 135

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CJ, G. C. MISHRA, Member
Shri Sanjay Sancheti – Appellant
Versus
The Initiating Officer, BPU, Raipur – Respondent
MP-PBPT-4525/RP/2023 (Stay) | MP-PBPT-4537/RP/2023 (Exemp.) | MP-PBPT-4536/RP/2023 (Stay) | FPA-PBPT-3166/RP/2023 | FPA-PBPT-3171/RP/2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ashwani Taneja, Mr. Shreya Shandilya, Mr. Ayush Saini, Mr. Ashish Tandon
For the Respondents: Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, S.P.P, Ms. Rhythm Bhardwaj, Mr. Ajay Kumar

A transaction qualifies as benami if property is held without payment by the benamidar for the benefit of another, regardless of whether transfer occurred before or after statutory amendment.

Headnote:(A) Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 - Section 2(9)(A) - Appeals filed against the order of Adjudicating Authority designating individuals as Benamidar and Beneficial Owner - The IO established that land purchased in the name of one, under power of attorney, was held by another without consideration. Appellants asserted the transactions predated the amendment and the nature of benami property was mischaracterized - Court found that the definition encompassed both holding and transfer, reaffirming the Adjudicating Authority's findings. (Paras 1-24)

(B) Benami Transactions - Establishing a benami transaction requires proving the transfer of property to a person who has not paid for it but is held for another's benefit - The burden of proof rests with the Initiating Officer, and the Adjudicating Authority's analysis was upheld. (Paras 1-24)

(C) Financial Transparency -The court noted that transactions lacking financial clarity or encashment of consideration checks indicate a dubious nature of the transaction. (Paras 15-22)

Findings of Court:
The order of the Adjudicating Authority confirming properties as 'benami' was upheld based on the failure of the appellants to provide evident legitimate financial trails pertaining to original ownership and respective transactions.

Issues: Whether the properties designated as benami were purchased prior to the amendment of the Act and the significance of the nature of transactions outlined.

Ratio Decidendi: The term 'benami' encompasses both the holding and the transfer of properties; the absence of financial backing indicates an arrangement inappropriate under the Act, validating the Adjudicating Authority's confirmation of the attachment.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of factual background and circumstances of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments by appellants contesting adjudication and presenting alternative interpretations. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. respondents argue legitimacy of findings and assertion of benami property. (Para 12 , 13)
4. court analyzes factual submissions and legal implications of transactions. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. final decision and dismissal of appeals. (Para 23 , 24)

FINAL ORDER

24.02.2026

Brief facts:

The present appeals have been filed u/s 46 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPTA, 1988) against the common order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority wherein it is held that Sh. Bhikram Chand Chandak is the Benamidar (BD) and Sh. Sanjay Sancheti is the Beneficial Owner (BO). Certain immovable properties and bank accounts are held as ‘benami property’.

2. The Initiating Officer (IO), Benami Prohibition Unit-Raipur, had made a Reference numbered as R-0210/PBPT/DLI/2022 dated 05.07.2022 to the Adjudicating Authority along with a Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) dated 28.06.2022.

3. The case of the IO is that Sh. Sanjay Sancheti had conspired for purchasing lands situated at Mandir Hasaud, Tehsil- Arang, District: Raipur (total area 1.516 Hectares) in the name of Sh. Bhikam Chand Chandak. During investigation, bank account statement of Sh. Bhikam Chand Chandak maintained at Punjab & Sindh Bank, Raipur Branch was called for. It was followed by summon to Sh. Bhikham Chand Chandak by the IO on 24.02.2022. His statement was recorded on oath wherein he disclosed his source of income to be out of salary in the range of Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- till 2017. It was also admitted that he did not have the actual possession of the lands and even the original sale deed. According to him, both things are under the control of Sh. Sanjay Sancheti. He further admitted that consideration to be paid in cheques for the subject properties/lands registered in his name had never been encashed. The scrutiny of the bank account statements of Sh. Bhikham Chand Chandak revealed that while the two sale deeds were executed on 07.05.2018 and 24.04.2020 in his name while the highest credit bank balance during the period aforesaid was Rs. 8,296/- and Rs. 216/- only. Further, the Income tax Returns filed by Shri Bhikham Chand demonstrated that from A. Y. 2015-16 to 2020-21 total income was Rs. 18,04,100/-.

4. On the basis of the investigation, the IO concluded that the land originally belonged to Sh. Sushil Pagariya who had taken cash loan from Sh. Sanjay Sancheti. When Sh. Sushil Pagariya couldn’t repay the loan to Sh. Sanjay Sancheti, he executed a Power of Attorney in his favor. The terms & conditions of this power of attorney were that Sh. Sanjay Sancheti would sell the lands to third parties out of which he will keep the money received from sale consideration in lieu of the outstanding loan and the surplus will be returned back to Sh. Sushil Pagariya. However, instead of selling the land to any normal buyer and adjusting the outstanding loan amount from the sale consideration, Sh. Sanjay Sancheti, by using that Power of Attorney, transferred the land in favor of Sh. Bhikam Chand Chandak for which no consideration was paid. The cheque detail related to payments mentioned in the Sale deeds were never encashed. In fact, neither any cheques were given by Sh. Bhikam Chand Chandak nor were they credited in the account of Sh. Sushil Pagariya. Out of the 1.516 Hectares of land purchased in the name of Sh. Bhikam Chand Chandak, some portion of lands (0.149 Hectare) were sold out and the sale consideration received in the bank account of Sh. Bhikam Chand Chandak was transferred to the bank account of Sh. Sanjay Sancheti.

5. On the basis of the facts referred above, Provisional Attachment Order has been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. Aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority, a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document