TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (11) TMI 473
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rties have been forfeited. These properties are stated to be owned by one Sikander Rangrej who had been detained under detention order No. 673/35/99-Cus. VIII, dated 19-8-1999. The detention order was confirmed under the advice of the Advisory Board and the same has not been set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction. The appellant before us is Sikander Rangrej. 2.Though four properties have been forfeited but the learned Counsel for the appellant has limited this appeal to the forfeited property No. l, namely, house/residential property at Lodhi Nagar, Opposite Khatikan Pyao, Fatehpur, Sikar, Rajasthan. The case of the appellant in respect of this property is that the land on which this property stands belonged to his father though he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as house property at Lodhi Nagar, Sikar (Rajasthan) was highly deficient. The Competent Authority ought to have identified the house property by giving Municipal No. or plot No. thereof and if there was no Municipal No. or plot No. by at least giving boundaries thereof so that the house property sough to be forfeited could have been well defined, known and identified. It is not this case where we are finding such a deficiency. In other past cases as well we have found that the properties have been forfeited without giving proper description and identification. For example, agricultural land had been forfeited without giving Khasra/Khatoni Numbers under the revenue records and also not giving the Village in which the agricultural land situa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s case, there is material on record to indicate that from the very inception the appellant had been pressing before the learned Competent Authority that the aforesaid forfeited property belonged to his father and he had only funded the construction of the house and that his brothers had also funded the said construction. But to our surprise the learned Competent Authority neither rejected that plea of the appellant by giving findings to the effect that the appellant was the owner nor issued notice to the father of the detenu appellant. The impugned order was passed on 24-9-2001. Prior to that date also, by petition dated 14-9-2001, the appellant had intimated to the Competent Authority that the said forfeited property belonged to his father....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mohalla Khatikan Near Khatikan Pyao on agricultural land in Khasra No. 621 Rakba 0.2. Since the details of the property owned by the father of the appellant have now been filed before this Appellate Tribunal, the Competent Authority will have to make inquiry about the ownership of the plot from the Municipal records or any other records of title relating to the Lodhi Nagar Colony in Distt. Sikar (Rajasthan). We have also noticed that though in the notice given to the detenu appellant the description of the property was given as "House property at Lodhi Nagar, Sikar (Rajasthan) but in the details of the property given in the forfeiture order the forfeited property has been identified as house/residential property at Lodhi Nagar, Opp. Khatik....