2005 (2) TMI 903 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of proceedings under SAFEMFOPA due to non-issuance of notice under Section 6(1) to the detenu.
2. Delay in initiating proceedings under SAFEMFOPA.
3. Burden of proof regarding the legality of the properties acquired.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Proceedings under SAFEMFOPA due to Non-Issuance of Notice under Section 6(1) to the Detenu:
The petitioners argued that the proceedings were invalid as no notice under Section 6(1) was served on the detenu. The counsel for the competent authority countered this by stating that no such notice was required under Section 6(1) for the detenu. The court examined Section 6, which deals with the notice of forfeiture, and Section 2, which outlines the application of the Act to various persons. The court concluded that the non-issuance of notice to the detenu did not vitiate the proceedings against the relatives, as the properties were held by the wife and brothers of the detenu. Therefore, the notices issued to them under Section 6(1) were deemed sufficient.

2. Delay in Initiating Proceedings under SAFEMFOPA:
The petitioners contended that there was an unreasonable delay in initiating the proceedings, exceeding six years. The court noted that no time limit is prescribed under the Act for initiating such proceedings. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in *Attorney General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas* (AIR 1994 S.C. 2179) and *Kesar Devi v. Union of India* (2003) 7 SCC 427), which clarified that the Act does not specify a time frame for initiating proceedings. Consequently, the court found no merit in the argument of delay affecting the validity of the proceedings.

3. Burden of Proof Regarding the Legality of the Properties Acquired:
The court emphasized that under Section 2(2)(c) of the Act, the burden of proving that the properties were not illegally acquired rests upon the person to whom the notice has been issued. The petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the properties were legally acquired. The competent authority and the Appellate Tribunal had both found that the properties were illegally acquired. The court, in its writ jurisdiction, found no reason to take a different view in the absence of any contrary evidence.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the orders of the competent authority and the Appellate Tribunal. The proceedings were found to be valid despite the non-issuance of notice to the detenu, and the delay in initiating proceedings was not deemed unreasonable. The burden of proof was rightly placed on the petitioners, who failed to demonstrate the legality of the acquired properties.