9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of forfeiture of agricultural lands. 2. Preliminary objection raised on the appeal's limitation. 3. Service of the order under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA). 4. Compliance with the service requirements of section 22 of the SAFEMA. 5. Applicability of the Civil Procedure Code in proceedings before the Competent Authority and the Tribunal. 6. Efforts made for service of the order and compliance with the law. 7. Decision on the maintainability of the appeal and stay petition. 8. Possession of forfeited property and completion of forfeiture. 9. Relevance of cited legal precedents in the present case. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the order of forfeiture of agricultural lands by the Competent Authority. The appellant sought a stay of forfeiture pending the appeal's disposal. 2. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the appeal's limitation, as it was presented with a delay of nearly 20 years. The Deputy Director contended that the appeal should be dismissed due to this delay. 3. The issue of service of the order under the SAFEMA was raised, with conflicting submissions regarding the receipt and service of the order on the appellant. 4. The compliance with the service requirements of section 22 of the SAFEMA was extensively analyzed. The contentions regarding the mode of service, including affixture and registered post, were carefully examined. 5. The applicability of the Civil Procedure Code in proceedings before the Competent Authority and the Tribunal was discussed, emphasizing the specific provisions of section 15 of the Act. 6. Detailed scrutiny was conducted regarding the efforts made for service of the order and compliance with the law. The records and note files of the Competent Authority were examined to establish the validity of the service. 7. The decision on the maintainability of the appeal and the stay petition was deliberated upon, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to being barred by limitation. 8. The issue of possession of the forfeited property and the completion of forfeiture was briefly touched upon, although not extensively discussed due to the primary focus on the appeal's limitation. 9. The relevance of cited legal precedents in the present case was considered, with a clear distinction made based on the specific circumstances and timelines involved in the appeal. In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed due to being hopelessly barred by limitation, with detailed analysis provided on the service requirements, compliance with the law, and the specific provisions of the SAFEMA governing the proceedings. The decision was based on a thorough examination of the facts and legal arguments presented during the hearing.
|
