TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 1185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... affirming the order dated 18th February, 1999 passed by the Competent Authority under SAFEMA, declaring that the properties and assets of late Sarbani Devi Jalan (mother of the writ petitioner) as described in the notice under section 6(1) of SAFEMA, including property lying and situated at 10, Digambar Jain Temple Road, Kolkata 700 007 (hereinafter referred to as the said house at Calcutta) are illegally acquired properties and forfeited to the Central Government free from all encumbrances. 2. At the outset, Mr. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents in A.P.O. No. 107 of 2013 submitted that the said appeal preferred on behalf of the Union of India had abated due to non substitution of the legal heirs of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner, Manilal Jalan, since deceased. He relied on State of Gujarat v. Sayed Mohd. Bakir El Edross, AIR 1981 SC 1921 in support of his submission. 3. Mr. Tarafder, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant/Union of India, admitted that no steps had been taken to substitute the heirs of respondent No. 1. He, however, submitted that the department would be at liberty to agitate its case in the appeal preferred by the writ petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... elaborate reply to the said notice. She relied on her income tax returns and/or assessment orders to establish that each and every item covered under the said notice was self acquired property and none of the said items, including the house at Calcutta, ought to have been held to be "illegally acquired property" under SAFEMA and that the proceedings against her was liable to be dropped. 11. After consideration of such reply, the Competent Authority issued notice under section 7(1) of SAFEMA calling upon Sarbani Devi Jalan for an oral hearing at Calcutta. 12. Sarbani Devi Jalan by letter dated 29th April, 1977 again called upon the Competent Authority to disclose the reasons in writing for arriving at a reasonable belief as contemplated under section 6(1) of the Act. The Competent Authority, however, declined to do so. 13. Under such circumstances, Sarbani Devi Jalan moved a writ petition before this Court challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of SAFEMA. In the course of hearing of the said writ petition, His Lordship the Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.K. Bose (as His Lordship then was) directed the Competent Authority to disclose materials/reasons on the ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l and the Competent Authority to the effect that the properties covered by the notice under section 6(1) of the Act are illegally acquired properties and were liable to forfeiture to the Central Government. Learned Single Judge further held that as the Competent Authority had recorded that Sarbani Devi had made an independent investment of Rs. 19,853/- for purchase of the house at Calcutta the writ petitioner ought to be permitted to redeem the said property on payment of find in lieu of forfeiture in terms of section 9 of SAFEMA and granted such relief to him. 22. The writ petitioner preferred appeal being APO No. 297 of 2009 against the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent the order of the learned Single Judge dismissed his writ petition challenging the finding of the Appellate Tribunal and the Competent Authority that the properties and/or assets were illegally acquired properties and liable to be forfeited to the Central Government. The writ petitioner having died during the pendency of the appeal, the present appellants being his legal heirs have been substituted and are prosecuting the said appeal. 23. The department had, on the other hand, challenged the ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1976 had severely prejudiced the writ petitioner in effectively defending himself as the facts relating to the acquisition of the properties in question were in the personal knowledge of the parents of the writ petitioner who had already died at the time of the oral hearing. 26. Mr. Tarafdar, learned Advocate, appearing for the department submitted that Sarbani Devi Jalan was a person covered under SAFEMA in terms of section 2(2)(c) thereof being the wife of the detenu, Nathmal Jalan. Drawing our attention to the notice under section 6(1) of the Act he submitted that Sarbani Devi Jalan was proceeded under the Act for being in possession of "illegally acquired property" in view of section 3(c)(iii) and (iv) of SAFEMA. 27. He further submitted that in terms of the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition resume of materials and/or reasons recorded in writing by the Competent Authority had been supplied to Sarbani Devi Jalan. It cannot be argued by the appellants or their predecessor-in-interest that the principles of natural justice had been violated in the instant case. He further submitted that delay in completion of the proceeding was due to factors beyond th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section 9 or section 12A of the said Act do not apply, has not been revoked on the report of the Advisory Board under section 8 of the said Act or before the receipt of the report of the Advisory Board or before making a reference to the Advisory Board; or (ii) such order of detention, being an order to which the provisions of section 9 of the said Act apply, has not been revoked before the expiry of the time for, or on the basis of, the review under sub-section (3) of section 9 or on the report of the Advisory board under section 8, read with sub-section (2) of section 9, of the said Act; or (iii) such order of detention, being an order to which the provisions of section 12A of the said Act Apply, has not been revoked before the expiry of the time for, or on the basis of, the first review under sub-section (3) of that section, or on the basis of the report of the Advisory Board under section 8, read with sub-section (6) of section 12A, of that Act; or (iv) such order of detention has not been set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction; (c) every person who is a relative of person referred to in clause (a) or clause (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity & Ors. (2007) 2 SCC 510 in support of his contention. 34. The aforesaid resume of facts/reasons were supplied to Sarbani Devi pursuant to direction given to this Court in the earlier writ proceeding. Hence it cannot be said that the notice under section 6(1) of SAFEMA was bereft of reasons or that the same had not been supplied to Sarbani Devi Jalan resulting in infraction of the principles of natural justice. 35. We have perused the resume of materials and/or reasons in the instant case. In the said resume of materials/reasons, the Competent Authority has recorded as thus: She purchased house property at 10, Digambar Jain Temple Road, Calcutta (formerly, 10, Dayahatta Road, Calcutta) on 15.12.1958 for a cost of Rs. 120000/- and incurred registration charges of Rs. 5933/- (total Rs. 125933/-). She declared income of Rs. 89,500/- in respect of the income tax assessment years 1951-52 to 1959-60 against which taxes paid amount to Rs. 9647/- leaving a balance of Rs. 79853/-. Besides, she declared initial capital in the business at Rs. 5000/- and a gift of Rs. 15000/- from her mother Smt. Sarawati Devi which were stated to be utilized in the purchase of propert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich cannot be proved and which cannot be shown to be attributable to any act or thing done in respect of any matter in relation to which Parliament has no power to make laws; or (iv) any property acquired by such person, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, for a consideration, or by any means, wholly or partly traceable to any property referred to in sub-clauses (i) to (iii) or the income or earnings from such property; 37. Section 3(i)(c)(iii) of SAFEMA, inter alia, provides that any property acquired by a person to whom the Act applies is liable to be forfeited if it cannot be proved that the said property was acquired from known sources of income, earnings or assets of such person is attributable to any act to which legislative competence of the Parliament does not extend. 38. Section 3(i)(c)(iv), inter aha, provides that any property acquired by such person for a consideration or by any means wholly or partly traceable to any property referred to in section 3(i)(c)(iii) (supra) is also illegally acquired property. Section 8 of SAFEMA puts the burden of proof upon such person to establish that the properties proceeded against are not illega....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r belief between the convict or detenu and the property as such an inference can easily be drawn. 13. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that under the Scheme of the Act, there is no requirement on the part of the competent authority to mention or establish any nexus or link between the money of the convict or detenu and the property sought to be forfeited. In fact, if such a condition is imposed, the very purpose of enacting SAFEMA would be frustrated, as in many case it would be almost impossible to show that the property was purchased or acquired from the money provided by the convict or detenu. In the present case, the appellant is the wife of the detenu and she has failed to establish that she had any income of her own to acquire the three properties. In such circumstances, no other inference was possible except that it was done so with the money provided by her husband. 43. In the said judgment the Apex Court considered the case of Fatima Mohd. Amin v. Union of India, (supra) and distinguished the said judgment in the following manner: 16. The judgment in Fatima Mohd. Amin relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant can be of n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such person. Learned senior counsel relied on Tolaram Relumal v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 496 in support of his contention. 49. SAFEMA was enacted in 25th January, 1976. The Preamble of the Act reads as follows: An Act to provide for the forfeiture of illegally acquired properties of smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators and for matter connected therewith or incidental thereto. Whereas for the effective prevention of smuggling activities and foreign exchange manipulations which are having a deleterious effect on the national economy it is necessary to deprive persons engaged in such activities and manipulations of their ill-gotten gains; And whereas such persons have been augmenting such gains by violations of wealth tax, income tax or other laws or by other means and have been increasing their resources for operating in a clandestine manner; And whereas such persons have in many cases been holding the properties acquired by them through such gains in the names of their relatives, associates and confidants; 50. From the statements and objects of the aforesaid legislation it is clear that the law was enacted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n a criminal trial so as to abate upon the death of the initial notice, but can be proceeded against his legal heirs who have an interest in the property sought to be forfeited, more particularly, when such legal heir is also a person covered under SAFEMA being the son of the detenu, as in the present case. Hence the continuation of the proceeding against the writ petitioner being the son of the detenu, Nathmal Jalan and the legal heir of Sarbani Devi, the notice under section 6 of SAFEMA cannot be said to be illegal in law. 53. The other argument advance by the learned Senior Counsel that the writ petitioner was prejudiced in the course of oral hearing under section 7 of SAFEMA inasmuch as he and his brothers were minors at the time of acquisition of the properties by their late mother in 1958 is also wholly without substance. The writ petitioner in the instant case did not participate in the oral hearing before the competent authority in spite of notice and therefore cannot be heard on the score of denial of effective opportunity to defend himself in violation of principles of natural justice. Notice under section 6(1) of the Act was served upon the mother Sarbani Devi Jalan. ....