Post-notice property transfers under SAFEMA are ignored, defeating transferee notice rights and bona fide purchaser protection.

A transfer made after issuance of notice under section 6(1) of SAFEMA is to be ignored under section 11, and once forfeiture follows, the post-notice transfer is deemed null and void for purposes of the Act. On that footing, the transferee is not entitled to separate notice, and the housing society likewise need not be separately notified because forfeiture operates only on the detenu's right, title and interest. The protection for a bona fide purchaser for value without notice under section 2(2)(e) applies only to pre-notice transactions; it does not extend to a transfer entered into after notice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants and the housing society were entitled to notice before forfeiture when the flat had been transferred after notice under section 6(1) of the Act; (ii) Whether the appellants, as purchasers, could claim the protection of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice under section 2(2)(e) of the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants and the housing society were entitled to notice before forfeiture when the flat had been transferred after notice under section 6(1) of the Act.

Analysis: The transfer in favour of the appellants was entered into after issuance of notice under section 6(1). Under section 11, any transfer made after such notice is to be ignored for the purposes of the proceedings and, once the property is forfeited under section 7, such transfer is deemed null and void. The statutory mandate leaves no discretion to treat the post-notice transfer as effective. Once the transfer is legally ignored, no separate notice to the transferee is required. For the same reason, notice to the society was unnecessary, because forfeiture could operate only on the right, title and interest held by the detenu and not beyond that.

Conclusion: The appellants and the society were not entitled to separate notice, and the post-notice transfer was rightly ignored.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants, as purchasers, could claim the protection of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice under section 2(2)(e) of the Act.

Analysis: The protection for a bona fide purchaser applies only where the transaction is completed before issuance of notice under section 6(1). Section 2(2)(e) and section 11 operate in different fields: the former saves pre-notice bona fide transfers, while the latter nullifies transfers made after notice. Since the appellants' agreement was subsequent to notice, the plea of bona fide purchase did not arise, even if value was paid and notice was absent.

Conclusion: The appellants could not invoke the bona fide purchaser protection under section 2(2)(e).

Final Conclusion: The forfeiture order was sustained, and the appeal failed on all substantive grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer of property made after issuance of notice under section 6(1) of SAFEMA is legally ignored under section 11 and, upon forfeiture, is void for the purposes of the Act, so the transferee cannot claim notice or the protection reserved for pre-notice bona fide purchasers.

---