TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 758
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the proceedings initiated against M/s Aamby Valley Ltd. (previously, Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd.) under the provisions of the PMLA, 2002. The facts placed by the appellant before the Ld. AA with regard to the subject property are reproduced below for the sake of convenience: as below: "1. We state that originally, one Laxman Ramji Dabhade ("said Laxman") was the absolute owner and seized and possessed of and/or otherwise well and sufficiently entitled to all that piece and parcel of land bearing Gat / Survey No. 142 admeasuring-1-92-6 Hectare (equivalent to- 4-Aeres-32.6-Gunthas) situate, lying-and being at Village Kumbheri Taluka Mulshi, District Pune and within the limits of Mulshi Panchayat Samiti and within the Registration and Sub-Registration District of Mulshi ("Larger Property") which inter alia includes the said Property. 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Haveli, Pune Division vide its order bearing no. 1158/1991 dated November 6, 1991 converted the tenure of the Larger Property from Class II (New Tenure) to Class I (Old Tenure) and permitted the said Laxman to sell and transfer the Larger Property in favour of one Rajdeo Singh Pratap Singh al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de also died leaving behind the following heirs and legal representatives: (ii) Yamuna Mohan Pawar (daughter of Parvatibai and sister of Pandurang); (ii) Suresh Pandurang Dabhade (son of Pandurang Dabhade); (iii) Subhash Pandurang Dabhade (son of Pandurang Dabhade); (iv) Sunita Krushna Shetty (daughter of Pandurang Dabhade); and (v) Vimal Pandurang Dabhade (wife of Pandurang Dabhade). (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Heirs of Laxman"). The aforesaid varasnond recorded vide Mutation Entry No. 409 in the revenue records of the said Property. 8. By and under a Sale Deed dated September 26, 2007, registered with the Sub-Registrar of Assurances at Lonavala under Serial No. 4390 pf 2007 ("Sale Deed of 2007"), Heirs of Laxman, sold, transferred, conveyed and assigned all their right, title and interest in the Larger Property in favour of (i) Dhiren Rajnikant Patrawala and (ii) Bhupendra Hiralal Chaudhari for the consideration and on the terms and conditions contained therein. 9. Pursuant to the Sale Deed or 2007 (1) Dhiren Rajnikant Patrawala and (ii) Bhupendra Hiralal Chaudhari each became entitled to 1/2hd ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dverse entry or found any registered document in the SRO office and after investigating the title of the said Property, we rightly and legally acquired the said Property form the Heirs of Chaudhari. 16. We state that we had filed an application numbered as Case No. 143/SR/05/2020 under Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 before the Ld. Tahsildar for the grant of an access to access to the said Property. 17. Pursuant to the aforementioned application, the Pd. Tahsildar passed an order dated February, 2021 in Case No. 143/SR/05/2020 inter alia, allowing our application and with the directions to the Company to allow and grant access to us through the land parcels of the Company. bearing Survey Nos 288 of Village Aambavane, Survey Nos. 106, 123, 124/and 125 of Village Pethshahpur and Sürvey Nos. 133, 134, 141/A and 141/B of Village Kumbheri and the right of way was granted in our favour to access the said Property under the provisions of Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966. A copy of the said order, dated February 1, 2021, is enclosed herewith as Annexure "F". The Hon'ble authority asked for the translated copy of this or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant to intervene in the proceedings. The said order has been impugned before us in this appeal. 5. For the sake of ready reference, the operative part of the said order of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority is reproduced as below: "2. Right and title of any property has to be decided by the Civil court in accordance with law. The Adjudicating Authority under PMLA is not empowered to adjudicate civil disputes. From submissions of the Complainant, it is noted that the Ld. Judge Civil Court Pune vide Order in RCS No. 1683/2004 dated 02.01.2020 has dismissed the suit filed by the heirs of Laxman Dabhade for cancellation of the 1991 sale deed. From the order it is evident that heirs of Laxman Dabhade had no rights on said plot No. 142. However, they had knowingly hidden these facts from the subsequent buyers (including Patrawala and Chaudhari) and sold said land to them in 2007, which is illegal and non-bonafide. Also, the same facts were hidden by Chaudhari & his heirs and the said land was sold to the petitioner Shrenik Seth, which is also illegal. Further, the Divisional Commissioner order dated 28.09.1999 it was nowhere mentioned that said land is transferred to to he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y. All he is required to do is to establish a claim to the property. Careful perusal of the language of Section 8(2), as compared to the language used in Section 8(8), reveals that while the said proviso to Section 8(2) merely speaks of a 'claim' by a person, for the purposes of Section 8(8), which deals with restoration of the property after its confiscation, the language of the statute requires the claimant to be one "with a legitimate interest in the property". The legislature has deliberately used two different formulations because the Proviso to Section 8(2) only entitles the person making the claim to an opportunity of being heard to prove that the property is not involved in money-laundering, whereas Section 8(8) entitles him to restoration of the property itself. Therefore, the Ld. AA was wrong in rejecting the application of the Appellant at the very threshold and holding that since the Appellant's application dated 27.03.2000 for regularization is still pending before the Collector, Pune, he was entitled even to a notice as provided under the Proviso of Section 8(2); 8. He next referred to the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hameedia Hardware Store v. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out the transaction, Respondent No. 1 and the Adjudicating Authority failed to issue notice to the Appellant or to afford a hearing to her, during the adjudication proceedings. Thus, the Respondent No. 1 and the Adjudicating Authority have failed to comply with mandatory notice required under section 8(2) was served. Section 8(2) is a mandatory provision, it is mandated under the proviso that if property is claimed by a person other than accused, he shall also be given an opportunity of being heard to prove that the property is not involved in money laundering. Despite of clear language of the act, no notice was given. The prescribed period has already been expired. The appellant is no doubt claimant in the attached property. It is not understood why the requisite notice was not issued by the respondent no. 1 and Adjudicating Authority. Despite being Appellant's claim to the said Property, Respondent No. 1 failed to fulfill its statutory duty, in terms of Rule 3(2) PML (Issuance of Provisional Attachment Order) Rules, 2013, to supply a copy of the Provisional Attachment Order to the Appellant at the time of the issuance of the same to the best reason known to respondent no. 1. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant between the language of section 8(1) vis-à-vis 8(8), he stated that the essence of the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Axis Bank with respect to the provisions of Section 8 is that the entire section has to be read conjointly and cannot be construed piecemeal. In this context, he specifically referred to paragraph 71 which reads as below: "71. The law recognizes that there may be third parties having "legitimate interest" in such property. It is for this reason that they are afforded opportunity to approach the adjudicating authority under section 8(1) or (2) and also the appellate tribunal under Section 26, as indeed the special court under section 8 (6), (7) & (8). Generally, the jurisdiction of the special court to deal with the issue comes at the time of conclusion of the trial before it but, in a fit case, it may consider request for release of the property from attachment even "during the trial" [second proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 8]." 16. In para 150 of the judgment, it is once again reiterated that the interests of third parties that the Act seeks to safeguard are only "legitimate interests". A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction (1) are involved in money-laundering: Provided that if the property is claimed by a person, other than a person to whom the notice had been issued, such person shall also be given an opportunity of being heard to prove that the property is not involved in money- laundering." [Emphasis added] 22. Notably, the words used by the statute are merely, "if the property is claimed by a person...". Nothing is mentioned as to what should be the nature of right, title or interest of the person making such a "claim". Had the legislature intended that the person should be an undisputed owner of the property, it could have said so. Even the word "owner" has not been used. While it cannot be anyone's case that any random person with no connection whatsoever to the land can legitimately make a "claim" and the Adjudicating Authority would be obliged to issue a notice to him and give him an opportunity of being heard, equally, it also cannot be seen to imply that no claim under the provision can be made unless the person has proved a perfect and undisputed title to the property. There is nothing in the language of the statute to convey that impression. In the present case, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mazumdar is concerned, I find merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that the same is distinguishable of facts since in that case there was no dispute regarding the ownership title of the seller. 27. Coming to the case laws cited on behalf of the respondents, I have already held in the present case, the appellant did have a "legitimate interest" in the property for the purposes of issue of notice under section 8(2). For the same reason, I do not find any merit in the contention of the counsel for the respondent that if the appellant's claim were to be allowed, the Ld. AA would be flooded with such applications. The appellant is in no way a complete stranger to the land, as already discussed. 28. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that revenue records do not prove ownership of property can be accepted even without reference to the case laws cited by him. However, as discussed above, the appellant's claim in the present case does not rest on revenue records alone. 29. Insofar as the judgment in Vimla Gautam & Ors. v/s Mohini Jain & Anr is concerned, no direct relevance of the said case law on the issues involved in the present case co....