Mandatory notice and hearing control property forfeiture; unnotified assets and disputed shares cannot be forfeited validly.

Forfeiture under the Act cannot validly extend to a person's share in house property without mandatory notice and hearing where the competing claim to that share must first be examined; an alleged relinquishment said to have occurred before the section 6(1) notice does not cure the defect. Property not included in the section 6(1) notice, including a business concern carried on under a separate name, also cannot be forfeited in the same proceedings. The operative effect is that forfeiture depends on prior statutory notice to affected persons and coverage of the property in the notice.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Competent Authority could forfeit the entire house property without notice and hearing to the person who had allegedly acquired an interest in the share of the property, and whether section 11 applied to the alleged relinquishment; (ii) whether the business property could be forfeited when no notice under section 6(1) had been issued in respect of it.

Issue (i): whether the Competent Authority could forfeit the entire house property without notice and hearing to the person who had allegedly acquired an interest in the share of the property, and whether section 11 applied to the alleged relinquishment.

Analysis: The notice under section 6(1) was issued only to the appellant, although the record showed that the house had been purchased in different shares by two different persons bearing the same name and that the appellant had allegedly relinquished her share in favour of Rajinder Kumar Jain. Since the validity of the alleged relinquishment and the competing claim of Rajinder Kumar Jain could not be decided without hearing him, the forfeiture of the entire house without affording him an opportunity of hearing was unsustainable. Section 11 did not assist the Competent Authority because the alleged relinquishment was said to have occurred before the section 6(1) notice was issued.

Conclusion: The forfeiture of House No. 750, Sarafa, Jabalpur, could not be sustained and had to be reconsidered after notice and hearing to Rajinder Kumar Jain.

Issue (ii): whether the business property could be forfeited when no notice under section 6(1) had been issued in respect of it.

Analysis: The business carried on under the name of "Kusum Bartan Bhandar" was not included in the notice under section 6(1). Property not covered by the statutory notice could not validly be forfeited in the proceedings.

Conclusion: The forfeiture of the business property was invalid.

Final Conclusion: The order of forfeiture was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh decision after issuing the requisite notices to the affected persons concerned.

Ratio Decidendi: Forfeiture under the Act cannot validly be sustained against property or interests of persons who were not given the mandatory statutory notice and hearing, and property not covered by the section 6(1) notice cannot be forfeited.

---