2022 (5) TMI 1546 - HC - Benami Property

Attachment of property of petitioner - de jure owner - violation of the procedure, including the requirement to arrive at a satisfaction before forming an opinion that the property in question may be alienated during the period specified in the notice - Section 24(3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The petitioners submits that they are ready and willing to submit the reply to the show cause notice which is an obligation under Section 24(1) of the Act and prays for time of two weeks for the said purpose. HELD THAT - This Court is of the view that interest of justice would be served if a period of 10 days is granted to the petitioners to submit the reply to the show cause notice dated 30.03.2022 - In the event, the reply is filed within 10 days from today i.e., 06.06.2022, the respondent authorities would consider the same strictly in accordance with the provisions laid down in Section 24 of the Act. Writ petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against an order under Section 24(3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 for attaching property due to alleged violation of procedure and lack of satisfaction regarding potential alienation.

Analysis:
The petitioners contested an order dated 31.03.2022 under Section 24(3) of the Benami Property Transactions Act, claiming violations of procedure and absence of a required satisfaction before determining potential alienation of the property in question. The petitioners argued that they were unable to file a reply to the notice due to lack of necessary materials provided despite requests. The central issue raised was the necessity of arriving at a satisfaction before taking action, as highlighted by the learned Senior Counsel.

The central contention revolved around the requirement of forming an opinion as a precondition for initiating action, with the absence of such rendering the entire process void ab initio due to jurisdictional deficiencies. The Respondent, represented by the Central Government Counsel, contended that the appropriate authority had indeed arrived at a prima facie satisfaction for issuing the show cause notice, as evidenced by written instructions dated 28.03.2022.

Moreover, the Respondent argued that a satisfaction regarding potential alienation was indeed reached, supported by a note dated 30.03.2022 from the Deputy Commissioner, indicating approval from the appropriate authority on the same day. The Respondent maintained that the procedure followed was correct and in compliance with the Act, as the satisfaction was based on factual considerations.

The Senior Counsel for the petitioners, however, raised concerns regarding the subjective nature of the satisfaction, claiming it lacked objective standards and was seemingly mechanical. Despite the Court refraining from delving into the adequacy of reasons, it was noted that the satisfaction should be connected to the issue of potential alienation, a crucial aspect of the ongoing dispute.

Ultimately, the Court granted the petitioners ten days to submit a reply to the show cause notice, emphasizing that the proceedings based on the challenged order would not proceed further. The petitioners' undertaking not to alienate the property, supported by an affidavit, was considered, and the process under Section 24(1) of the Act was directed to commence afresh in strict adherence to legal provisions.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the directive to restart the process in accordance with the law, ensuring that the petitioners had the opportunity to respond to the notice within the specified timeframe, thereby safeguarding their rights and upholding the principles of justice.