Benami attachment requires proved nexus between the alleged amount and the attached immovable properties.

Substitute attachment under the Benami law cannot continue unless the attached immovable assets are shown to have a proved nexus with the alleged benami amount or its identifiable proceeds. The tribunal held that the definition of property includes converted forms and proceeds, but sustaining attachment of other assets still requires evidence linking the specific properties to the benami amount, or showing that the amount had merged into non-segregable assets. As no material connected the two immovable properties with the alleged amount of Rs. 5,00,000, the earlier release of attachment was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the immovable properties attached in lieu of the alleged benami amount could be sustained in the absence of proof that those properties were acquired from, or were traceable to, the benami amount or its proceeds.

Analysis: The operative definition of property under the Benami law covers assets in any form and also their converted form and proceeds. For sustaining attachment of other assets in lieu of the alleged benami amount, it was necessary to establish a clear link between the amount said to be benami and the particular immovable properties attached, or to show that the amount had been merged in assets that were not separately demarcable. On the material before it, there was no evidence connecting the two immovable properties with the alleged amount of Rs. 5,00,000 or any part thereof. In the absence of such nexus, the principle relied upon for tracing business receipts could not justify continuation of the attachment.

Conclusion: The attachment of the immovable properties was rightly released, and the challenge to that part of the order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Substitute attachment under the Benami law cannot be sustained unless the attached assets are shown to have a proved nexus with the benami amount or its identifiable proceeds.

---