The court emphasized strict compliance with statutory requirements under SAFEMA for forfeiture notices, asserting that failure to provide adequate reasoning renders the notice and subsequent proceedings invalid.

Dated this the 18^th day of December, 2025 Syam Kumar V.M., J.

This appeal is filed by the Union of India challenging the judgment dated 27.05.2010 of the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.23337 of 2000. Appellants were the respondents in the O.P.

2. O.P.No.23337 of 2000 was filed by the widow and son of one Mohammed Haneefa, who was detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA'). He died while in custody on 14.02.1977. During pendency of the O.P., the son passed away and his widow (2^nd respondent in the W.A.) was impleaded as the 3^rd petitioner in the O.P. During pendency of the Writ Appeal, the 1^st respondent in the appeal, who was the 1^st petitioner in the O.P., passed away and her legal representatives were impleaded as additional respondents No.3 to 7 in the appeal.

3. The O.P. was filed by the Original Petitioners, mother and son, inter alia challenging Exhibit P6 order of the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property (ATFP), New Delhi which upheld the forfeiture orders (Exhibit P5) of the Competent Authority, Madras whereby the properties of the Original Petitioners were forfeited to the Central Government under the provisions of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'SAFEMA'). The said forfeiture proceedings emanated out of Exhibit P1 notice, which was issued under Section 6 of the SAFEMA on the premise that the property forfeited had been acquired by the deceased Mohammed Haneefa by tainted source.

4. The learned Single Judge allowed the O.P. and quashed Exhibits P1, P5 and P6. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India.

5. Heard Sri.S.Biju, Advocate, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the appellants. There is no appearance for the respondents though notice was taken out by way of publication. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge had erred in allowing the O.P. and in quashing Exhibits P1, P5 and P6. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to properly appreciate the scope and extent of the definition of ‘person’ as defined under Section 2 (2) (b) of SAFEMA. It is submitted that Sri.P.M.Mohammed Haneefa was detained under COFEPOSA and that the original petitioners were his wife and son and they too fell within the ambit of “persons” as per Section 2 (2) (c) of SAFEMA. The proceedings initiated against them separately which resulted in forfeiture orders dated 30.08.1996 and 28.08.1996 were valid and legal. The properties forfeited stood in the name of the wife and son, to whom SAFEMA was applicable and who had been duly served with notices as stipulated under Section 6 (1) of SAFEMA, after assigning reasons for doing so.

7. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge failed to take note that as per the provisions of SAFEMA, the competent authority only had to record his reasons in writing and the burden of proving that the properties are not illegally acquired was on the person affected. The provisions of the SAFEMA, it is submitted, does not cast any obligation on the competent authority to furnish a copy of the reasons recorded, to the person affected. The relevant Section only stipulates that the reasons should be recorded in writing and the reasons were duly recorded in writing by the competent authority. The contention that notice was a stereotyped one is incorrect as the same was specifically issued to the person affected, had stated the property which was put on notice and it clearly alleged that the competent authority had reason to believe that it is illegally acquired property. Thus all th