Forfeiture of property requires clear evidence of connection between property ownership and criminal activity; absence of proof invalidates forfeiture orders.

COMMON ORDER

1. The issues involved in all these Writ Petitions are common and hence they are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this common order.

2. The petitioners in W.P.No.23663 of 2003 and W.P.No.24589 of 2011 have challenged the forfeiture order passed by the 1^st respondent under Section 68-I of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’) dated 29.11.1999 and the consequent notice of the 1^st respondent dated 22.09.2011.

3. The petitioner in W.P.No.25538 of 2011 has challenged the impugned order of the 1^st respondent dated 04.10.2011, wherein a direction was issued to the petitioner to handover the possession of the subject property.

4. The petitioners in W.P.No.23663 of 2003 purchased the subject property viz., a flat measuring 1148 sq.ft., along with the proportionate undivided share in the land from the 2^nd respondent through a registered sale deed dated 03.11.1999. Subsequent to the purchase of the subject property, the tenant who was in occupation of the flat was served with an order dated 30.07.2003, whereby, a direction was issued by the 1^st respondent directing the possession of the flat to be handed over to the Competent Authority within a period of 30 days. On coming to know of this order served on the tenant, the petitioners enquired and they found that a forfeiture order was passed on 29.11.1999, by the Competent Authority under the NDPS Act against one Y.V.Nagaraj, forfeiting the subject property which stood in the name of his wife, viz., the 2^nd respondent. Thereafter, an order dated 24.03.2000 was passed under Section 68-U of the NDPS Act, directing the 2^nd respondent to surrender and deliver possession of the property. The appeal filed by the 2^nd respondent against this order was also dismissed by the Tribunal through an order dated 24.4.2002. Pursuant to the same, notice was issued to the tenant to vacate and handover the possession. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition was filed before this Court.

5. Insofar as the petitioners in W.P.No.24589 of 2011 are concerned, they purchased the property measuring an extent of 86 cents through two sale deeds dated 11.09.2007. Similarly, they also purchased another extent of 56 cents through a sale deed executed during June 2010. Both the sale deeds were executed by M/s. Nikita Aqua Culture Pvt., Ltd. The petitioners received the impugned order dated 22.09.2011 passed by the 1^st respondent under Section 68-M of the NDPS Act, directing the petitioners to handover possession of the property. On receipt of this order, the petitioners enquired and they found that one Y.V.Nagaraj was arrested and he was detained under The Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PITNDPS Act’) during October 1994 and thereafter, a freezing order was passed under Section 68-F of the NDPS Act on 14.11.1994. A notice was also issued to the vendor of the petitioners on the ground that the said Company is an associate of Y.V.Nagaraj. The freezing order was confirmed subsequently through an order dated 05.12.1994. Thereafter, an order of forfeiture was passed under Section 68-I of the NDPS Act on 29.11.1999. As a consequence, the impugned order dated 22.9.2011 came to be passed by the 1^st respondent under Section 68-M of the NDPS Act, directing the handing over of the possession of the property. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition was filed before this Court.

6. The petitioner in W.P.No.25538 of 2011 purchased the subject property viz., Plot Nos. 6 and 7 measuring an extent of 3672 sq.ft., from the 4^th respondent though two registered sale deeds dated 18.3.2010. After the purchase of the properties, the petitioner received the impugned order dated 4.10.2011, directing the petitioner to handover possession of the properties. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that a detention order was passed against the husband of the 4^th respondent viz.,