9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 911X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aning of section 2(2)(b) of the SAFEMA, notices dated September 18, 1997, under section 6(1) of the Act were issued to them, to show cause why the properties mentioned in the Schedule should not be forfeited as illegally acquired properties. The appellants replied to the said notices stating that the properties are not illegally acquired. The proceedings before the Competent Authority underwent several adjournments at the request of the appellants. Finally, on finding that the appellants were not producing any documentary evidence in support of their contention and failed to be present, either in person or through authorised representatives on March 31, 1998, to which date, the matter was posted, the Competent Authority passed the order und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, submitted that the appeal is barred by limitation. It was submitted by learned counsel of the appellants that no attempt was made by the Competent Authority to serve the order on the appellants by tendering the same as required by section 22(a) of the SAFEMA and that the affixture of the notices was not made at the last known residence of the appellants as required by clause (b) of section 22, as the appellants have subsequently corresponded with the Competent Authority from a different address. The further contention is that the affixture of the orders was not proper as there was no valid panchanama drawn. It was lastly argued that the appellants were not given notices before the corrigendum was issued, as required by section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority made his submissions in writing and we heard counsel for the appellant as well as the Deputy Director. The order under appeal was passed by the Competent Authority on March 31, 1998. The appeal was presented on July 28, 1998. The Deputy Director submitted that the order of the Competent Authority was sent to the appellants by registered post and they were returned as unclaimed and hence they were served by affixture on May 8, 1998, and May 10, 1998, at the addresses of the appellants. It was further stated that a corrigendum dated May 18, 1998, was issued, as there were errors in the description of the forfeited properties in the Schedule attached to the order dated March 31, 1998, and that the said corrigendum was also served on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7, to the same address and that it was incumbent on the part of the Competent Authority to note the change of address and it was necessary to have affixed the order only at the new address. The contentions of learned counsel has no force as there was no mention in the letter dated November 10, 1997, that the appellants have changed their address and that the original addresses to which the notices under section 6(1) were sent, should be changed. From the letter dated November 10, 1997, it is clear that the appellant moved to Mumbai after visiting her native place for admitting her father-in-law in a private clinic. It is not possible for the Competent Authority to note change of address from the letter dated November 10, 1997, as there wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses in which the appellants last resided is also without substance. So far as the Competent Authority was concerned, the premises at which the appellants last resided was only at the address at which the notice under section 6(1) was served. Temporary residence at other places during the course of the proceedings will not alter the situation, unless the change of address is specifically informed to the Competent Authority. We, therefore, hold that the respondent had served the order under appeal as required by section 22. The contention that the panchanamas are invalid as the panchas were not examined, is devoid of any merit. The Inspector, Shri P. L. Dev, called two witnesses, Shri Shailendra Santpal and Shri Pravin Kadam, and made the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were materially changed from their description originally mentioned in the order dated March 31, 1998. To quote an example, one of the properties mentioned in the order dated March 31, 1998 was House No. 72, Naroda, Ahmedabad, was to be read as Flat No. 57, Sarvmangal Society, Bapu Nagar, Ahmedabad, as per the corrigendum. Where such glaring rectifications were to be made, it was incumbent on the part of the Competent Authority to afford an opportunity to the appellants to show cause why such rectification should not be done. Section 20 reads as follows : 20. Rectification of mistakes.-With a view to rectifying any mistakes apparent from the record, the competent authority or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, may amend any orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
