Contemporaneous documents and seller affidavit can defeat forfeiture when they prove property was acquired before alleged illegal activity.

Contemporaneous original documents, including a receipt, agreement to sell, power of attorney and seller's affidavit dated 26.03.1993, were treated as sufficient proof that the properties were acquired before the alleged illegal activity. The seller confirmed sale and receipt of full consideration, while the competent authority produced no material to show later acquisition or forgery. On that evidentiary basis, the Tribunal's finding of a 1993 purchase was upheld and the forfeiture order under SAFEMA was not sustained merely because the documents were unregistered.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the properties were purchased in 1993 and, on that basis, setting aside the forfeiture order under SAFEMA.

Analysis: The respondent produced the original receipt, agreement to sell, general power of attorney and affidavit of the seller, all bearing the date 26.03.1993 and supported by notarial attestation and witness signatures. The seller also affirmed that the property had been sold and full consideration received. The Competent Authority produced no material to show that the properties were acquired later or that the documents were forged. The Tribunal also noted that the alleged illegal activities commenced only later and the firm said to be involved was incorporated in 2000.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's finding that the properties were purchased in 1993 was supported by adequate evidence and called for no interference. The petition was rightly dismissed, in favour of the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: Where contemporaneous original documents and the seller's affidavit substantiate acquisition of property before the alleged illegal activity, and the competent authority produces no contrary material, forfeiture cannot be sustained merely because the documents are unregistered.

---