Bona fide property claim under PMLA entitles a third party to notice and hearing without proving perfect title.

A claimant need only show a bona fide claim and legitimate interest in attached property to invoke the proviso to Section 8(2) of the PMLA; proof of perfect or undisputed title is not a precondition for notice and hearing. Here, the appellant traced title through successive conveyances, asserted possession and cultivation, and was not shown to be a mere stranger or mala fide purchaser, so the material was sufficient to attract the statutory right of participation. The refusal to implead or hear the appellant was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had a sufficient claim and legitimate interest in the attached property to be entitled to notice and participation under the proviso to Section 8(2) of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 8(2) uses the expression "if the property is claimed by a person" and does not require the claimant to establish perfect or undisputed title before being heard. The provision is intended to ensure that a third party with a real connection to the property is not excluded from the adjudication process at the threshold. On the facts, the appellant traced title through successive conveyances, claimed possession and cultivation, and was not shown to be a mere stranger or a mala fide purchaser. The material placed before the Authority was sufficient to show a claim attracting the statutory right of hearing. The distinction drawn by the appellant between the threshold claim under Section 8(2) and the higher requirement under Section 8(8) was accepted as consistent with the scheme of the Act.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to notice and an opportunity of hearing under the proviso to Section 8(2), and the refusal to implead or hear the appellant was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A person need only show a bona fide claim and legitimate interest in property to invoke the proviso to Section 8(2); proof of perfect title is not a precondition for being heard in adjudication under PMLA.

---