2020 (3) TMI 932 - HC - Benami Property

Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction - provisional attachment of the immovable property - Ld. Single judge observed that it is not a fit case to call for interference as the provisional attachment is only an arrangement to preserve the property until the authority completes the proceedings under the Act - HELD THAT - No further proceedings have been filed from the part of the Appellant disputing the correctness or otherwise of Annexures R/4 and R/5. On going through the above documents, it is seen that the version of the Respondents that, the proceedings were pursued after getting approval in terms of sub-Section 3 of Section 24 is established by the Respondents and as such, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal. It stands dismissed. Respondents referred to the wild allegations levelled against the authorities/department, particularly, under paragraph 9.6 of the writ petition alleging 'corruption', without producing any material to substantiate it - no materials have been produced from the part of the Appellant in support of the allegations levelled against the Respondents therein. Reckless allegations, when raised without testing the correctness, are liable to be acted upon seriously. However, because of the magnanimity expressed on the part of the learned Standing counsel, alerting the writ Petitioner/Appellant of the consequences and to be careful in future. We leave it there and no further order is being passed in this regard.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the correctness of the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge regarding the provisional attachment of immovable property under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenged the order causing provisional attachment of property under the Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988. Both factual and legal averments were raised and rebutted by the Respondents.
2. The learned Single Judge declined interference, stating the provisional attachment was to preserve the property until proceedings under the Act were completed. The parties could appear before authorities to establish the property was not benami.
3. The Appellant challenged the order on grounds of lack of proper notice and approval under Section 24(3) of the Act. The Department claimed approval was obtained from the Approving Authority, but it was clarified that the approval was under Section 23, not Section 24(3).
4. Further proceedings clarified the approval was obtained under Section 24(3) as well, supported by additional documents. The Court found the Respondents' version established and dismissed the appeal.
5. The Respondents highlighted wild corruption allegations without evidence in the writ petition. The Court warned against reckless allegations without proof, but no further action was taken in this regard.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues raised, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Court's reasoning leading to the dismissal of the appeal.