9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 514X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istrict Pali (Rajasthan). By virtue of the said order the said property has been forfeited under Section 7(1) and 7(3) of the SAFEMA to the Central Government. The petitioner is the wife of one Popat Lal who was a detenue under COFEPOSA and in view of his activities the said Shri Popat Lal was a person covered under Section 2(2)(b) of SAFEMA. The provisions of SAFEMA were applied to the said Shri Popat Lal and, accordingly, the properties allegedly illegally acquired by the said person were sought to be forfeited in view of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of SAFEMA. Admittedly, the property in question stands in the name of the petitioner and not in the name of her husband (Popat Lal). The Sale Deed also shows that the property was purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. I have carefully considered all the facts on record at the monitoring stage and also after the issue of notice under Sections 6(1) and 7(1) of the Act. Under the circumstances and keeping in view the non-cooperative attitude of the AP and the fact that the proceedings cannot be kept pending indefinitely, I have no alternative but to decide the case to the best of my judgment on the basis of material available on record. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 25. In the absence of any supporting evidence, I have no other alternative but to forfeit the property of the AP as mentioned in the Schedule to the notice u/s 6(1) of the Act. Hence, in view of the provisions of Section 3(1) to (iv), the same are forfeited u/s 7(1) and (3) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 94 S.C. 2179 at page 2204. It is for the purposes of ascertaining whether the property was actually one which belonged to the said Shri Popat Lal and whether it was merely held by the petitioner on his behalf, that the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 have been enacted. It is, therefore, necessary to examine these provisions. Sections 6 and 7 of SAFEMA are set out hereinbelow :- 6. Notice of forfeiture. - (1) If, having regard to the value of the properties held by any person to whom this Act applies, either by himself or through any other person on his behalf, his known sources of income, earnings or assets, any other information of material available to it as a result of action taken under Section 18 or otherwise, the competent authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... When the competent authority is satisfied that some of the properties referred to in the show cause notice are illegally acquired properties but is not able to identify specifically such properties, then it shall be lawful for the competent authority to specify the properties which, to the best of its judgment, are illegally acquired properties and record a finding accordingly under sub-section (1). (3) Where the competent authority records a finding under this section to the effect that any property is illegally acquired property, it shall declare that such property shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, stand forfeited to the Central Government free from all encumbrances. (4) Where any shares in a company stand forfeited to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly holds the property of the detenue on the latter s behalf. Admittedly, in this case, no notice under Section 6(2) of the SAFEMA had been issued to the petitioner i.e. the person in whose name the property stands. Section 7 also fortifies this line of reasoning inasmuch as it makes it abundantly clear that before an order of forfeiture can be made under the said Section the person affected and, in the case where the person affected holds any property specified in the notice through any other person, then, such other person must also be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Admittedly, no notice has been issued to the petitioner and obviously no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... right on the consumer to be heard in the matter pertaining to determination of the tariff, the High Court was in error in denying that right to the consumers. 5. Thus, in view of the clear observations of the Supreme Court when the statute itself gives an opportunity of being heard that opportunity cannot be whittled or taken away. In the present case, the facts are very clear. No notice under Section 6(2) was issued to the petitioner and obviously, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner although the same was required to be done under the statute. In this view of the matter the impugned order dated 22-7-2002 cannot be sustained insofar as the petitioner and her said property is concerned and the same is quashed and set asi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
