TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (1) TMI 549
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le to be forfeited to the Central Government. The Petitioners then filed Ext. P4 explanation which was considered by the competent authority under the aforesaid Act. Ext. P5 order was then issued holding under Section 7 of the Act, that the right, title and interest of the petitioners being under the 'affected person' (Saidalavi) are illegally acquired as defined under Section 3 of the Act and are liable for forfeiture. The petitioners then filed Ext. P6 appeal before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Act. As per Ext. P7 order, the Appellate Authority found that as regards the rights of the petitioners the forfeiture will stand, though it will not affect the rights or interests of Smt. Ami Umma, mother of the detenu. It is the correctness of the aforesaid finding that is impugned in the present Original Petition. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the aforesaid property was actually obtained by the detenu in Ext. P8 family partition of 1955 included in items 12 to 18. The allottees of the said item included the detenu's brothers and sisters as well. As per Ext. P9 document, dated 3-4-1985 the brother and sister jointly released their right ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the purchase took place only on 17-12-1987 and that no evidence was adduced to show that the amount was kept by her for nearly 3 months. The competent authority also held that even if all the aforesaid amounts are taken into account, with regard to the balance of Rs. 5,040/- no explanation was offered by the petitioners. 6. The Appellate Tribunal generally agreed with the aforesaid findings. Regarding the contention that the sale proceeds obtained from Abdul Aziz was retained with the detenu, the Tribunal found that the transactions of sale and re-purchase are highly suspicious and that as the detenu was absconding from the place, it is highly improbable that he would keep the sale proceeds of the property in tact on his person. Referring to the loan obtained by Suharabi the Appellate Tribunal found that the supporting evidence was only photocopy of a small slip purported to have been issued by the State Bank of India. The Tribunal, however, noted that the impact of the conveyance to Abdul Aziz was that the purchaser became a co-owner of the property along with other sharer, who is the mother of the detenu and that viewed from that perspective, the sale and re-purchase cann....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p;xx    xx   xx (c) every person who is a relative of a person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b); (d) every associate of a person referred to in clause (a) or (b); (e) any holder (hereafter in this clause referred to as the present holder) of any property which was at any time previously held by a person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) unless the present holder or, as the case may be, any one who held such property after such person and before the present holder, is or was a transferee in good faith for adequate consideration." 9. It is obvious from a reading of the aforesaid provision that Sections 2(a) and (b) are intended to be operative against the detenu whereas clauses (c) and (d) can take in even his relatives and associates. The scope and ambit of the aforesaid provisions and the extent to which the properties of the relatives and associates would be affected by applying the Act were considered by the Apex Court in Attorney General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas and others (AIR 1994 S.C. 2179). The Apex Court considered the contention that relatives or associates of a detenu may have acquired pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the year 1955 that took place several decades before the detention order came into force. The detenu has obtained the rights of co-sharers also more than a decade before passing of the detention order. He has sold his property to Abdul Aziz under Ext. P9 for Rs. 40,000/-. It is true that there is no definite evidence in the form of any affidavit or the like to show that Saidalavi, the detenu, retained this amount until the need for re-purchase arose. Nevertheless, in the absence of any other evidence to show the manner in which the said amount was spent, the petitioners are certainly justified in contending that a link can be established between the said consideration of Rs. 40,000 and the sum of Rs. 46,000/- which the detenu allegedly gave to the petitioners for re-conveyance. The difference of Rs. 6,000/- which is said to be the agricultural income derived from the various properties of the detenu between the years 1985 and 1987. It is not as though in villages every one maintains true and correct accounts of each and every item of agricultural income and in the circumstances, the petitioners cannot be found fault with for not producing evidence with regard to the details o....