Court orders fresh start of proceedings in Benami Property Act case, petitioners get extension to respond

The Court disposed of the writ petition challenging the order under Section 24(3) of the Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The Court directed a fresh start of proceedings, requiring strict adherence to statutory procedures, after the petitioners offered an undertaking not to alienate the property and sought time to respond to the show cause notice. The Court granted a 10-day extension for filing the reply, ruling that the impugned order would not be enforced and the process would recommence from the initial stage in accordance with the law.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge against an order under Section 24(3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 for attaching the petitioner's property due to alleged violation of procedure in arriving at a satisfaction regarding possible alienation.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged an order under Section 24(3) of the Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, seeking attachment of a property, alleging procedural violations. The petitioners claimed they were not provided necessary materials to respond to the notice, resulting in a delayed reply. The key contention was the absence of a proper satisfaction before concluding the property could be alienated during the specified period. The Senior Counsel argued that lack of such satisfaction renders the action void ab initio due to jurisdictional deficiency.

The Central Government Counsel (CGC) countered the challenge by presenting written instructions indicating that the appropriate authority had prima facie satisfaction before issuing the show cause notice. The CGC referred to notes showing that a satisfaction was reached regarding the potential alienation of the property in question. The CGC argued that the procedure followed was correct, as evidenced by the note dated 30.03.2022, demonstrating a valid satisfaction regarding possible alienation.

The Senior Counsel contested the validity of the satisfaction, claiming it was mechanical and lacked objective standards. Despite acknowledging that the Court should not assess the adequacy of reasons in the note, it was noted that the satisfaction did not seem connected to the issue of property alienation. However, the Court refrained from making further observations on the case's merits to prevent prejudice to either party.

The petitioners expressed no intention to alienate the property and offered an undertaking not to do so, supported by a verified affidavit. They sought time to submit a reply to the show cause notice, as required by Section 24(1) of the Act. The Court granted a 10-day extension for filing the reply, emphasizing that if submitted within the stipulated time, the authorities must consider it in compliance with Section 24 of the Act. The Court ruled that the impugned order would not be enforced, and the process would restart from the initial stage in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the writ petition challenging the order under Section 24(3) was disposed of, with the Court directing a fresh start of proceedings based on the petitioners' undertaking and affidavit, ensuring strict adherence to the statutory procedures outlined in Section 24(1) of the Act. The written instructions forming part of the records were also noted for reference.

---