TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary, and that it is not in public interest to disclose the facts or to give an opportunity of making a representation to the detenu. 3. Following the said detention, which was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner, a notice dated 10-5-1978 was issued by the competent authority under Section 6 of SAFEMA stating that he had reason to believe that the properties mentioned in the schedule have been acquired by him illegally within the meaning of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of SAFEMA. The petitioner was required to indicate the sources of his income, earnings and assets out of which, or by means of which the petitioner had acquired the scheduled properties, and also to show cause as to why they should not be declared as illegally procured properties and forfeited under the Act. The said notice pertained to the following properties : THE SCHEDULE Description of the property Name of the present holder of property (1) Plot Nos. 35 to 38, Chandrauli, Delhi Shri Piara Lal (2) Plot No. 13/1, 14/15, bearing Khasra No. 21- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est being in assessment years 1972-73, 1974-75, 1975-76. The additions in these years are on account of various investments made and expenditure incurred by Piara Lal in these years. As a perusal of para 3 would indicate, Piara Lal s investments in real estate were made in the periods relevant to assessment years 1972-73 and 1974-75. In the period relevant to assessment year 1972-73, Piara Lal has made an investment of ₹ 10,800 in the Chandrauli Plot in Delhi. In the course of assessment proceedings, being unable to explain the source of his investment, Piara Lal has surrendered the amount of investment for assessment. Similarly in the period relevant to assessment year 1974-75, Piara Lal has made investments in real estate listed at S. No. 2, 3 and 4 in para 2. The aggregate of these investments comes to about ₹ 16,000. Here again, unable to explain the source of this investment, Piara Lal has surrendered the same for assessment. In this year an addition has also been made on account of inadequate marriage expenses and inadequate household expenses. It will thus be abundantly clear that although Piara Lal s various investments have been considered in the course of asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een established that he was engaged in the activity of smuggling of goods. Even otherwise, without existence of source material to connect the alleged activity of smuggling to the source of funds from which the scheduled properties were acquired, the competent authority did not even derive the jurisdiction to issue the said notice under Section 6 of SAFEMA. He places reliance on the following decisions : (i) Fatima Mohd. Amin (Smt) (Dead) Through Lrs v. Union of India Anr., (2003) 7 SCC 436 (ii) P.P. Abdulla Anr. v. Competent Authority Ors., (2007) 2 SCC 510 = 2007 (207) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.) (iii) Attorney General for India Ors. v. Amratlal Prajivanda Ors., (1994) 5 SCC 54 (iv) Shri Gian Chand Garg v. Union of India Ors. in W.P. (C.) No. 4581/1996, decided on 4-9-2007 by S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 9. On the other hand, the submission of learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Malik is that the reasons to believe recorded by the competent authority are sufficient. He submits that nexus between the income derived from illegal activity and the acquisition of the property need not be established where the property concerned is that of the detenu himself. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as follows : 8. It must be stated that an order of confiscation is a very stringent order and hence a provision for confiscation has to be construed strictly, and the statute must be strictly complied with, otherwise the order becomes illegal. 9. In our opinion, the facts of the case are covered by the decision of this Court in Fatima Mohd. Amina v. Union of India (supra). In the present case the contents of the notice, even if taken on face value, do not disclose any sufficient reason warranting the impugned action against the appellant as, in our opinion, the condition precedent for exercising the power under the Act did not exist. Hence, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 10. In the present case, in the notice dated 15-3-1988 issued to the appellant under Section 6(1) of the Act (copy of which is annexed as Annexure P1 to this appeal), it has not been alleged therein that there is any such link or nexus between the property sought to be forfeited and the alleged illegally acquired money of the appellant. 11. Hence, in view of the decision of this Court in Fatima Mohd. Amina s case (supra), the said notice dated 15-3-1988 has to be held to be illegal. Consequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
