Property forfeited under SAFEMA was also subject to TADA...

Property forfeited under SAFEMA was also subject to TADA proceedings. The court held that TADA provisions are distinct from SAFEMA, citing a previous Supreme Court judgment. Declaratory suits filed by the Appellant in the Bombay High Court have no bearing on the SAFEMA proceedings. The validity of the notice u/s 6 of SAFEMA does not require establishing a nexus between the Detenue's income and the property. The appeal challenging the impugned order was rejected. The principles of natural justice were not violated despite the final hearing being brief and decided by the same Authority. The property in question, Aqdas Mahal, was acquired structurally, but without supporting loan agreements. The Appellant failed to provide evidence of the property's source of acquisition. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal.

---