Reasoned belief under SAFEMA requires a proven nexus before notice; invalid initiation collapses forfeiture proceedings.

Section 6(1) of SAFEMA requires the competent authority to act on relevant material, record reasons in writing, and form a reasoned belief that the property is illegally acquired and traceable to the detenue or convict before issuing notice. A mere statement that the holder has no known source of income, or an unparticularised printed notice, is insufficient where the necessary nexus between the property and the alleged illegal assets is not first established. The authority must not embark on a roving enquiry or shift the burden to relatives before that foundational link is shown. On these facts, the notices were invalid for non-application of mind and the forfeiture orders failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show-cause notices issued under Section 6(1) of SAFEMA satisfied the statutory preconditions, including consideration of the value of the properties, the known sources of income or assets, and relevant material, and whether the competent authority had formed a legally sustainable reason to believe that the properties were illegally acquired properties traceable to the detenue/convict.

Analysis: Section 6(1) requires the competent authority to act on relevant material, record reasons in writing, and apply its mind before issuing notice. The decision reiterates that SAFEMA is aimed at reaching the illegally acquired properties of the detenue/convict, even when they stand in the name of relatives or associates, but the authority must first trace a link or nexus between the property proceeded against and the illegal activity or assets of the detenue/convict. A bare assertion that the holder has no known source of income, or a printed notice with irrelevant portions left unstruck, does not by itself satisfy the statutory threshold. The reasons must disclose the material basis for belief and cannot amount to a roving enquiry or shift the burden to the relative before the foundational link is established. Once the initiation itself is defective, the consequential forfeiture proceedings cannot survive.

Conclusion: The notices under Section 6(1) were held invalid for non-application of mind and absence of the requisite nexus or link, and the forfeiture orders were set aside.

---