Appellate Tribunal upholds provisional attachment order for multiple properties under SAFEMA despite appellant possession claims

The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA confirmed the provisional attachment order for multiple properties belonging to appellants. One property in Ranchi was already in appellant's possession per HC Jharkhand order. For other properties in Udaipur and Bangalore, appellants sought restoration of possession citing Vijay Madanlal Choudhary precedent and better maintenance capabilities. Appellants agreed to abide by attachment conditions until trial completion. The Tribunal disposed of appeals without interfering with the provisional attachment order, directing appellants not to alienate, transfer, or deal with properties until trial conclusion before Special Court.

---

---

Issues:
1. Confirmation of Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) dated 20.02.2018 for immovable and movable properties.
2. Restoration of possession of properties to the Appellants.
3. Compliance with impugned order and conditions till the trial's conclusion.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns appeals challenging the confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) No. 04/2018 dated 20.02.2018, which attached immovable and movable properties totaling Rs. 1,76,38,527/-. The immovable properties included properties in the names of the appellants and others, with specific details provided in the impugned order dated 03.08.2018. The appellants contested the confirmation based on legal grounds, seeking restoration of possession citing relevant legal precedents.

2. The Appellants sought restoration of possession of the attached properties, arguing that the Respondent had taken possession of some properties post-confirmation. The Appellants relied on the judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., emphasizing that possession can only be taken in exceptional cases. The Respondent, however, opposed the restoration, citing the retrospective applicability of the judgment and contending that it altered statutory provisions. The Tribunal considered these arguments and ordered the restoration of possession for specific immovable properties to the Appellants, emphasizing compliance with imposed conditions till trial conclusion.

3. The Tribunal noted the Appellants' willingness to abide by the impugned order's terms regarding the confirmation of the attachment until the trial's completion. The judgment emphasized that the Appellants must ensure that the properties are not alienated or transferred and are maintained as per the conditions set forth. The Appeals were disposed of without interference in the Provisional Attachment Order or the confirmation order, directing strict compliance with the trial proceedings and property handling until its conclusion. The judgment concluded by disposing of all pending applications related to the Appeals.

---