TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 134
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bearing no. 503, Fifth Floor, Sinchan Building, New Link Road Extension, Veera Desai Road, Mumbai (hereinafter ‗the said property'). In addition, the petitioner also impugns an order dated 11.03.2020, passed by the Competent Authority under Section 68-I(1) and (3) of the NDPS Act to the extent that it declares the said property as forfeited to the Central Government. The said order is not on record, however, the same is referred in an order dated 12.03.2020. The said orders are hereinafter referred to as ‗the impugned orders'. 2. The petitioner claims that he is a bonafide purchaser, for valuable and adequate consideration, of the said property and the impugned orders are, thus, without jurisdiction. In addition, the petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....15;affected person' (Virendra Kumar Rai and his relatives/associates). The aforementioned properties also included the said property (Flat No. 503, A Wing, Sinchan Building, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Mumbai). 7. The said property was purchased by Sh. Birendra Kumar Rai, who was the father of the accused V.K. Rai, in the year 1985. He had purchased the said flat from Shelters Builders. The said property was thereafter, sold to Anand Kumar Bagla in the year 1990, who continued to own the said property till 1994. In 1994, Sh. Anand Kumar Bagla sold the said property to M/s Spintex Industries. The petitioner claims to have purchased the said property from M/s Spintex Industries in 1996. 8. The Customs Department sought to take possessio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... property had been wrongly frozen. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents indicates that he was of the view that the order freezing the said property had been passed inadvertently. 11. In view of the above, the Competent Authority and Administrator, Lucknow issued a letter dated 17.01.1994 (F No. 2/CA/LKO/NDPS/48-52) accepting that the said property was to be excluded from the schedule of properties of the affected person and/or his relatives/associates. 12. In the meantime, Sh. V.K. Rai as well as Smt. Krishna Devi Bagla and Sh. Anand Kumar Bagla filed appeals before Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Properties, New Delhi impugning the forfeiture order. The appeal preferred by Sh. V.K. Rai was allowed. The order forfeiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tition, which is not traversed by the respondent, that the petitioner had availed of a loan from HDFC for purchasing the said property and a No Objection Certificate stating that the said property was not subject to any encumbrance or liability had been issued by Sinchan Cooperative Housing Society for the purpose of availing the said loan. 17. The petitioner has been holding the said property since 1996 and it is not disputed that no notice of any proceedings in respect of the said property had been issued to the petitioner. 18. It is apparent from the above that there is no real controversy in respect of the essential facts that are necessary to address the challenge to the impugned orders. Admittedly, the said property had been purchas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is no dispute whatsoever that the said property was not liable for forfeiture. 21. Mr. Kishore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had referred to sub Section (1) of Section 68A and Clause (f) of Sub Section (2) of Section 68A of the NDPS Act and had submitted that by virtue of the petitioner acquiring the property in good faith and for adequate consideration, he could not be considered as a person as referred to in Sub Section (1) of Section 68A of the NDPS Act and therefore, the provisions of Chapter V-A of the NDPS Act were wholly inapplicable to the petitioner. Section 68A(1) and Section 68A(2) (f) of the NDPS Act are set out below:- "68A. Application.-(1) The provisions of this Chapter shall apply only to the persons ....