Mandatory notice and hearing under SAFEMA are essential before forfeiture of property standing in a relative's name.

SAFEMA requires service of notice on the person in whose name the property stands when that person is alleged to hold it for the detenue, and Section 7(1) requires a reasonable opportunity of hearing before any finding of illegal acquisition and forfeiture. Where the property stood in the petitioner's name, but no notice under Section 6(2) and no hearing under Section 7(1) were given, the mandatory statutory safeguards and natural justice requirements were not met. On that basis, the forfeiture of the petitioner's property could not be sustained and was set aside insofar as it concerned her property.

---

---

Issues: Whether property standing in the name of a relative could be forfeited under SAFEMA without serving notice under Section 6(2) on that person and without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing under Section 7(1).

Analysis: Section 6(1) required notice to the person to whom the Act applied, and Section 6(2) specifically required service of notice on any other person in whose name the property stood but who was said to hold it on behalf of the detenue. Section 7(1) further mandated that, before recording a finding of illegal acquisition and ordering forfeiture, the affected person and any such other holder of the property had to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Since the property stood in the petitioner's name and no notice under Section 6(2) or hearing under Section 7(1) was given to her, the statutory safeguards and principles of natural justice were not complied with.

Conclusion: The forfeiture order could not be sustained against the petitioner and her property.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the impugned forfeiture was set aside insofar as the petitioner's property was concerned.

Ratio Decidendi: Where SAFEMA expressly requires notice to the person in whose name the property stands and a reasonable opportunity of hearing before forfeiture, non-compliance with those mandatory requirements vitiates the forfeiture order.

---