Post-notice property transfers under SAFEMA are ineffective against forfeiture, leaving no enforceable title for the purchaser.

Transfers made after notice under the SAFEMA forfeiture scheme do not create enforceable title where the property has already been proceeded against and forfeiture has been ordered. The Act treats post-notice transfers as ineffective for proceedings, and section 11 requires such transfers to be ignored and, on forfeiture, deemed null and void. A purchaser who acquires the property after commencement of forfeiture proceedings cannot claim rights against the forfeited property, especially where the notice and forfeiture steps have attained finality. The transfer in favour of the appellant was therefore ineffective and void for the purposes of the Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant acquired any enforceable right in property already subjected to forfeiture proceedings under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, and whether a transfer made after issuance of notice under the Act could defeat forfeiture.

Analysis: The property was proceeded against under the Act by issuance of notice under Section 6(1), followed by an order of forfeiture under Section 7. The statutory scheme prohibits holding illegally acquired property and treats transfers made after notice under Section 6 or Section 10 as ineffective for the purposes of proceedings under the Act. Section 11 expressly provides that such post-notice transfers are to be ignored and, upon forfeiture, deemed null and void. Since the appellant's purchase was much later than the notice and after the forfeiture process had commenced, no enforceable title or right could accrue from that transfer. The earlier forfeiture and notice proceedings had also attained finality.

Conclusion: The appellant had no right over the forfeited property, and the transfer in her favour was ineffective and void for the purposes of the Act. The dismissal of the writ petition was , and the appeal fails.

---