2013 (7) TMI 1185 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Abatement of Appeal
2. Jurisdiction to Proceed Against Relative of Detenu
3. Nexus Between Illegally Acquired Property and Detenu's Income
4. Abatement of Proceedings Upon Death of the Noticee
5. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

Summary:

1. Abatement of Appeal:
The appeal (A.P.O. No. 107 of 2013) preferred by the Union of India abated due to non-substitution of the legal heirs of the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner, Manilal Jalan. Consequently, this appeal was dismissed.

2. Jurisdiction to Proceed Against Relative of Detenu:
The court held that under section 2 of SAFEMA, the Act applies not only to the detenu but also to their relatives and associates. The initiation of proceedings against Sarbani Devi Jalan, the wife of the detenu, without initiating proceedings against Nathmal Jalan, the detenu, was valid. The properties standing in her name were rightly subjected to a notice u/s 6 of SAFEMA as "illegally acquired property."

3. Nexus Between Illegally Acquired Property and Detenu's Income:
The court examined the resume of materials/reasons and found a reasonable nexus between the properties acquired by Sarbani Devi Jalan and the illegitimate income of her husband, Nathmal Jalan. The court cited Kesar Devi (Smt.) v. Union of India & Ors. and held that there was no requirement to establish a direct link between the detenu's money and the property sought to be forfeited when the relationship is close and direct, as in the case of a spouse.

4. Abatement of Proceedings Upon Death of the Noticee:
The court ruled that the forfeiture under SAFEMA is not punitive but reparative, aimed at recovering illegal gains in favor of the State. Therefore, the proceedings do not abate upon the death of the noticee and can be continued against the legal heirs who have an interest in the property. The continuation of the proceedings against the writ petitioner, being the son of the detenu and legal heir of Sarbani Devi Jalan, was deemed lawful.

5. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The court found no violation of natural justice as the writ petitioner and his brother chose not to appear for the oral hearing despite receiving notice. The defense was based on documentary evidence, and the delay in proceedings was due to the constitutional challenge to SAFEMA, not attributable to the authorities. The court upheld the direction allowing the writ petitioner to redeem the house property at Calcutta on payment of fine in lieu of forfeiture u/s 9(a) of SAFEMA.

The appeal (APO No. 297 of 2009) and other connected applications were dismissed, and the order of the learned Single Judge was upheld.