1992 (7) TMI 297 - AT - FEMA

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the detention order under COFEPOSA.
2. Competence of SAFEMA authorities to review COFEPOSA detention orders.
3. Validity of the declaration under section 12A of COFEPOSA.
4. Validity of property transactions and transfers.
5. Application of section 11 of SAFEMA concerning property transfers.
6. Locus standi of appellants Rama Devi and Pawan Kumari.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Detention Order under COFEPOSA:
The appellant's counsel argued that the detention order against Pala Singh was legally defective because the grounds for detention were not recorded before issuing the order on December 18, 1975. The tribunal dismissed this argument, stating that the SAFEMA authorities are not competent to examine the legality of a COFEPOSA detention order. The SAFEMA applies to individuals detained under COFEPOSA unless a competent court sets aside the detention order, which was not the case here.

2. Competence of SAFEMA Authorities to Review COFEPOSA Detention Orders:
The tribunal clarified that SAFEMA authorities do not have the jurisdiction to set aside or question the legality of detention orders issued under COFEPOSA. The SAFEMA authorities must recognize detention orders until a competent court sets them aside. Since no court had set aside the detention order against Pala Singh, he remained an affected person under SAFEMA, and his wife, Lajwanti, was also considered an affected person.

3. Validity of the Declaration under Section 12A of COFEPOSA:
The appellant argued that the declaration under section 12A of COFEPOSA was not mentioned in the "reasons recorded" by the competent authority under section 6(1) of SAFEMA, making it inapplicable. The tribunal rejected this contention, stating that the omission of the declaration in the "reasons to believe" does not invalidate its applicability in SAFEMA proceedings. The tribunal also dismissed the argument that the declaration under section 12A was rendered infructuous due to non-reconsideration within four months, stating that the declaration continues until specifically revoked.

4. Validity of Property Transactions and Transfers:
The tribunal scrutinized the evidence regarding the purchase and sale of the disputed property. It found no credible evidence supporting the alleged purchase of a house in Kailash Nagar by Pala Singh or its sale to Kirpal Singh. The tribunal concluded that the legal source of the funds used to purchase the disputed house was not proven. Additionally, the sale of the house by Lajwanti to Jaswant Singh and subsequently by Jaswant Singh to Rama Devi and Pawan Kumari was deemed invalid due to the lack of registered sale deeds.

5. Application of Section 11 of SAFEMA Concerning Property Transfers:
Section 11 of SAFEMA stipulates that any property transfer after issuing a notice under section 6 or section 10 shall be deemed null and void if the property is subsequently forfeited to the Central Government. Since the notice under section 6 was issued in 1976, and the transfers to Jaswant Singh and then to Rama Devi and Pawan Kumari occurred in 1977 and 1981, respectively, these transfers were nullified under section 11.

6. Locus Standi of Appellants Rama Devi and Pawan Kumari:
The tribunal concluded that Rama Devi and Pawan Kumari had no legal interest in the disputed property as the transfers were invalid. Consequently, they lacked the locus standi to file the appeal F. P. A. No. 21/(DLI) of 1992, leading to its dismissal.

Conclusion:
Both appeals were dismissed, affirming the forfeiture of the property to the Central Government under section 7 of SAFEMA. The tribunal upheld the competent authority's findings regarding the illegitimacy of the property transactions and the applicability of SAFEMA provisions.