Forfeiture of composite property must identify the liable portion specifically; explained source of funds cannot support forfeiture.

When a dwelling house is proceeded against as a single composite unit, a forfeiture notice and order must identify the specific portion alleged to be liable with certainty; an unspecified or vague forfeiture of part of the house is legally defective and unsustainable. The explanation for investment in the third room was also accepted because the record showed a contribution from the appellant's son, which was available to meet the expenditure of Rs. 10,000. On that basis, the source of funds was treated as explained and forfeiture could not rest on that amount. The forfeiture order was set aside, and the remaining issues relating to agricultural land and the wife's properties were remitted for fresh decision in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Competent Authority could forfeit an unspecified portion of a dwelling house treated as one unit in the notice under section 6(1) of the Act. (ii) Whether the appellant satisfactorily explained the source of Rs. 10,000 spent on construction of the third room of the house.

Issue (i): Whether the Competent Authority could forfeit an unspecified portion of a dwelling house treated as one unit in the notice under section 6(1) of the Act.

Analysis: The notice proceeded on the footing that the whole house was one composite unit. Once the property was so proceeded against, the Authority could not bifurcate it for forfeiture purposes without identifying the specific portion liable to forfeiture. A forfeiture order must be definite and capable of execution, and a vague direction forfeiting an unspecified part of a house is legally defective.

Conclusion: The forfeiture of an unspecified portion of the house was invalid and could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant satisfactorily explained the source of Rs. 10,000 spent on construction of the third room of the house.

Analysis: The record showed contribution from the appellant's son during the relevant period, and the Authority itself accepted that at least Rs. 10,200 had been received by the appellant from that source. On a fair appraisal of the material, that contribution was available for the construction of the third room, and the explanation for the expenditure of Rs. 10,000 was accepted.

Conclusion: The source of Rs. 10,000 stood explained and no forfeiture could be made on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The order of forfeiture was set aside, while the remaining matters concerning the agricultural land and the wife's properties were left for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: When a property is proceeded against as a single unit, the forfeiture order must identify the specific liable portion with certainty, and an unexplained investment cannot be presumed where the material fairly supports a lawful source of funds.

---