TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (7) TMI 627
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... they have filed these appeals soon after they came to know of the passing of the impugned order. H. K. Sarin was detained by an order dated July 12, 1975, under the provisions of the COFEPOSA for his involvement in smuggling of jewellery and precious stones. He was declared an absconder. Considering him as a person covered by section 2(2)(b) of the SAFEMA, the competent authority issued a notice under section 6(1), dated April 29, 1980, to the detenu to show cause why certain properties including the property in question, namely, house No. 3378, should not be forfeited as illegally acquired. The wife of the detenu responded to the notice and filed a reply dated March 23, 1981, stating that the properties are not illegally acquired properties. The detenu also sent his reply dated March 23, 1981, stating, inter alia, that the house bearing No. 3378 was awarded by the Rehabilitation Department of the Government of India to him and his mother, Suhag Wanti, against a claim of property left in Pakistan for a consideration of Rs.19,000 and that the property was acquired from legal sources. Subsequently, the detenu was represented by a special power of attorney and the matter was adjourn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 12(4) of the SAFEMA as they are the owners of the property which is under forfeiture by virtue of the order of the competent authority. He further submitted that the appellants are the bona fide purchasers for value without notice and hence the property purchased by them cannot be forfeited. He further submitted that house No. 3378 is not an illegally acquired property as the same was allotted to the detenu and the sale deed dated March 9, 1998, was executed in his favour by the Managing Officer, Land and Building Department, Evacuee Property Cell. It was lastly contended that there was enormous delay between the date of issue of notice under section 6(1) and the date of the impugned order and that the same deserves to be set aside. The Deputy Director, appearing for the competent authority, firstly, contended that the appellants have no locus standi to maintain the appeal, inasmuch as the sale deeds executed in their favour subsequent to the issuance of notice to the detenu under section 6(1) of the SAFEMA are hit by section 11 and are null and void. He further submitted that the question whether the appellants are bona fide purchasers for consideration without notice or not, d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance against the decision which has been pronounced, which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully affected his title. The appellants have registered sale deeds in their favour executed by the detenu and it is for them to establish that they derived title to the property in question, by virtue of the sale deeds. That can be done only after the appeals are entertained and the claims of the appellants are considered by this Tribunal. In that view of the matter, we hold that the appellants are "persons aggrieved" within the meaning of subsection (4) of section 12 and that their appeals are maintainable. The next question which requires to be examined is whether the appellants derived any title by virtue of the sale deeds executed by the detenu in their favour. The notice under section 6(1) of the SAFEMA was issued by the competent authority to the detenu on April 29, 1980. The sale deeds in favour of the appellants were executed by the detenu on March 9, 1998. The impugned order was passed by the competent authority forfeiting the properties of the detenu including the property purchased by the appel lants on August 5, 1998. According to the Deputy Director, the sale de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in law, to support the purpose for which it was intended. An instrument or transaction which is wholly ineffective, inoperative, and incapable of ratification and which thus has no force or effect so that nothing can cure it". The word "void" is used in statutes in the sense of utterly void so as to be incapable of ratification. We have, therefore, to hold that the sale deeds dated March 9, 1998, which were executed by the detenu long after the issuance of notice dated April 29, 1980, under section 6(1) to him became void, after the passing of the impugned order dated August 5, 1998, forfeiting the properties conveyed to the appellants under the said documents. The sale deeds are ineffective, inoperative and have no force or effect in law. We are unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are bona fide purchasers for value and that clause (e) of sub-section (2) of section 2, SAFEMA, is applicable to them. The said provision is set out hereunder (see [1976] 46 Comp Cas (St.) 119) : "2. Application.-(1) The provisions of this Act shall apply only to the persons specified in sub-section (2). (2) The persons referred to in sub-section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... can be avoided is by regarding two apparently conflicting provisions as dealing with distinct matters for consideration. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that transfers in favour of the appellants are covered by section 11 and not by section 2(2)(e) as contended. The contention that the appellants are the bona fide purchasers is not established by any document/evidence except the appellants stating so. They have not adduced any evidence to show that they have made any inquiries with the Registrar, or issued any notices in the newspapers and made any inquiries. These are the essential requisites for establishing bona fides on the part of a purchaser. May be the detenu suppressed the fact that there were proceedings under section 7 in respect of the properties and fraudulently transferred the properties to the appellants. The remedy for such acts of the detenu available to the appellants is elsewhere. We hold that the appellants are not bona fide purchasers. We deal with the further contention of the appellants that the properties purchased by them are not illegally acquired properties of the detenu, to make the record complete. The contention is that the detenu was al....