2024 (1) TMI 1541

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itions are taken up together, heard, and disposed of by a common order. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above writ petitions, shorn of unnecessary details, are as follows: (i) The petitioners vide Sale Deeds dated 30.04.2008 registered as Doc.Nos. 4316 of 2008 and 4317 of 2008 at the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Thiruvottiyur, purchased from one Mr. A. Narayanan, the agricultural land in S.Nos.686/1, 689/2 (Part) and 690/1 having a total extent of 2.93 Acres of land situated at No.144, Vallur Village, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District. (ii) The Writ Petition No. 28454 of 2022 is in respect of lands comprised in S. No. 686/1 measuring an extent of 75 cents. (iii) The Writ Petition No. 34676 of 2022 is in respect....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot confirmed, the petitioners have filed WP No. 34676 of 2022, seeking removal of the entries in the encumbrance certificate. (vii) Aggrieved by the fact that no notice was issued before passing the provisional order of attachment in respect of the property in WP No.28454 of 2022, the petitioners have sought a certiorarified mandamus, praying for the quashing of the provisional attachment order dated 11.10.2010. 3. (i) Mr. Sricharan Rangarajan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, admittedly, the provisional order of attachment in respect of the properties in S. Nos. 689/2 and 690/1 covered in WP No. 34676 of 2022 was not confirmed by the adjudicating authority and in view of the proviso to Section ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ial Public Prosecutor (ED), submitted that both the writ petitions are not maintainable; that the petitioners have an effective alternate remedy; that they can approach the authorities concerned under Section 8(2) of the PMLA 2002; that if the petitioners are aggrieved by any action of the adjudicating authority, they can file an appeal before the appellate tribunal under Section 26 of the PMLA 2002; and that further appeal is provided to this Court under Section 42 of the PMLA 2002. (ii). The learned Special Public Prosecutor also submitted that, as per Rule 3-A of the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Restoration of Property) Rules, 2016, the petitioners can also approach the Special Court for the restoration of property that is attached....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1.2010." 8. As stated earlier, the provisional attachment in respect of properties in S. No. 689/2 and 690/1 (the subject matter of this writ petition) was not confirmed by the adjudicating authority. Though the 3rd respondent sought liberty to re-investigate the transaction of the seven properties, which includes the petitioners' property, the counter is silent about whether any reinvestigation was conducted. 9. Though the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Enforcement Directorate submitted that there was an order of interim stay passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.2240 of 2011, it is admitted in the counter that the said Criminal Original Petition, challenging the provisional order, was dismissed on 13.07.2012. E....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Appellate Tribunal for Forfeiture of Property under Sections 25 and 26 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the confirmation order passed under Section 8 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, we are not inclined to send Amarabalan, the petitioner herein there for the following reasons: (a) He was not a party either in the proceedings under Section 5 or in the proceedings under Section 8 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (b) He was not issued any notice before the provisional order of attachment was passed and also in the confirmation proceedings. (c) There is no Presiding Officer in the Appellate Tribunal for a long time. Hence an ordinary citizen whose property has been attached....