Possessor as aggrieved person under PMLA upheld, with eviction stayed until statutory appeal is available

A person in admitted possession of attached property, though not the recorded owner, may qualify as an aggrieved person for purposes of challenging possession notice and attachment-related eviction under the PMLA. The Court held that such a possessor must be given the attachment confirmation order and an effective opportunity to invoke the statutory appeal under Section 26 before dispossession. Eviction could not proceed until that appellate remedy was made available and decided. The possession notice was therefore kept in abeyance, and service of the attachment order on the petitioners was directed to enable them to pursue the statutory remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners, being in possession of the property, were entitled to be treated as aggrieved persons for challenging the possession notice and the attachment proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, and whether eviction could be effected before they were enabled to pursue the statutory appeal.

Analysis: The petitioners' possession of the property was not disputed. The attachment had been confirmed and the consequential possession notice had been issued without service of the attachment order on the petitioners. The Court noted that where a person other than the recorded owner claims possession and stands to be affected by the eviction action, such person falls within the expression aggrieved person and can avail the appellate remedy under Section 26. The Court further held that the petitioners should be furnished a copy of the confirmation order so that they may challenge it before the Appellate Tribunal. Until that remedy is pursued and decided, eviction could not be carried out.

Conclusion: The petitioners were held entitled to be treated as aggrieved persons and to file an appeal under Section 26. The possession notice was ordered to remain in abeyance until disposal of the appeal, and the attachment order was directed to be served on the petitioners to enable them to prefer the statutory remedy.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were disposed of with interim protection against eviction and a direction facilitating the petitioners' statutory appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: A person in admitted possession of property, though not the recorded owner, may be treated as an aggrieved person for the purpose of challenging attachment-related eviction action and must be afforded an effective opportunity to invoke the statutory appeal before dispossession.

---