Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1998 (4) TMI 502

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ies Act, 1976 (COFEPOSA), by an order dated August 28, 1978. As he was considered as a person falling within the definition of section 2(2)(b) of the SAFEMA, a notice under section 6(1) of the Act dated September 27, 1980, was issued to him as an affected person, calling upon him to show cause as to why the properties mentioned in the said notice including Flat No. 115-B should not be forfeited. A reply to the said show-cause notice was issued by the detenu. With reference to Flat No. 115-B which was item No. 4 in the reply, the detenu stated that the same was sold on October 24, 1980, for Rs. 60,000. In spite of several notices and opportunities given to the detenu, there was no response from him and finally by a letter dated May 6, 1981, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... all within the definition of person contained in clause (e) of sub-section (2) of section 2 of the Act and his property cannot be forfeited. His further submission was that the competent authority was in error in holding that the agreement of sale between the appellant and the detenu was a collusive transaction. In reply, the Deputy Director, appearing for the competent authority, contended that the appellant was not entitled to issuance of any notice as the agreement in favour of the appellant was subsequent to issuance of notice under section 6(1) and was rightly ignored. She contended that there was no need to give any notice to the society as the forfeiture related to whatever right, title or interest that was vested in the appellan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... such property is subsequently forfeited to the Central Government under section 7, then, the transfer of such property shall be deemed to be null and void. From a reading of the above provision, it is clear that any transfer of property made subsequent to the issue of a notice under section 6 or section 10 shall be ignored and shall become null and void, after the properties are subsequently forfeited to the Central Government under section 7. The use of the word shall in section 11 makes it clear that there is no option but to ignore any transfer of property made subsequent to the issue of the notice under section 6. In the face of the mandatory nature of the provision in section 11, it was not open to the competent authority to take .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the detenu described himself as the owner of the flat and held out that he has an absolute right and authority in him to assign and transfer flat No. 115-B to the purchaser together with the shares. As per the form of a letter of allotment of the flat to the member of the society, the flat is allotted under bye-laws Nos. 26 and 78(a). The purchaser of the flat becomes a member of the society and is entitled to be in possession of the flat and to use the flat for which purpose it is allotted to him, subject to the restrictions contained therein. Even his successor-member by virtue of further transfer from a member will get possession of the flat, subject to the same terms and conditions. Be that as it may, we make it clear that the forfeitur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... forfeiture will be confined only to the right, title and interest of the detenu in the flat. The last submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant being a bona fide purchaser, is not covered by the provisions of the Act. Apart from the fact that there was no such ground raised in the grounds of appeal, the question whether the appellant was a bona fide purchaser does not arise when the transaction in favour of the appellant was subsequent to the issuance of the notice under section 6(1). It was strenuously argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the provisions of the SAFEMA which are draconian in nature should be read so as not to cause undue hardship to a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. He, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates