Fair notice in forfeiture proceedings requires clear property identification and notice to real owners before rights are extinguished.

Forfeiture of the residential property could not be sustained because the notice and final order failed to identify the property with sufficient clarity, as they omitted specific particulars such as municipal or plot numbers and boundaries. The record also showed that the appellant consistently asserted the property belonged to his father, yet no finding rejected that plea and no notice was issued to the father or other legal heirs. The absence of proper identification and notice to persons whose rights were directly affected breached fair notice requirements, so the forfeiture was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh action in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the forfeiture of the residential property could be sustained when the property was not properly identified in the notice and order, and when notice was not issued to the persons shown by the appellant to be the real owners.

Analysis: The forfeiture notice described the immovable property only in general terms, without municipal number, plot number, or boundaries, and the final forfeiture order still did not fully and clearly identify the property. The record also showed the appellant's consistent plea that the land belonged to his father and that he had only financed construction, yet no finding was recorded rejecting that plea and no notice was issued to the father or other legal heirs. The forfeiture was therefore proceeded with without properly identifying the property or hearing the persons whose rights were directly affected, which offended the basic requirement of fair notice.

Conclusion: The forfeiture of the property could not be sustained on the existing record and was set aside, with the matter remanded to the Competent Authority for fresh action in accordance with law.

---