9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w.e.f. 01.11.2016. Plain reading of the impugned order Annexure P-1 shows that the petitioners have in fact been given a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing before the same was passed. Reading the impugned order Annexure P-1 that is the order of provisional attachment, it reveals that petitioners have given an extensive explanation to the show cause notice which was duly considered by the Initiating Officer and taking into consideration the explanation and statements made by the petitioners the Provisional order of attachment has been issued. So far as Annexure P-1 is concerned, the same is purely in accordance with the provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 1988. So also Annexure P-2 again is a proceeding drawn strictly in accordance with the said provisions and as such the two orders cannot be said to have been passed without jurisdiction or authority of law. The proceedings drawn is only to determine whether the property standing in the name of the petitioners are a Benami property or not? - The final adjudication is yet to be done. Petitioners have been called upon in the said proceedings and it is only pending the final adjudication of whether the properties in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 against the petitioners who are husband and wife. It is alleged that the petitioners are in possession of more than 200 acres of land in Tahsil Pithora in villages Patewa, Jhalap, Lahrod, Barekel and in village Baya (Kasdol) and also in village Sankara, Basana and Bagbahara. According to the respondents, all these properties in fact are of one Shri Laxminarayan Agrawal @ Punnu Seth Son of Jagannath Agrawal R/o Pithora, District Mahasamund (CG). According to the respondents, the petitioners herein are basically villagers who do not have sufficient source of income to have such large chunk of land. As per the notice and the order of the respondents, on verification, it was found that the petitioners could not provide sufficient details in respect of their income on the basis of which they had acquired or purchased these properties. According to the respondents, the petitioners have not been able to show or recollect the details of the properties that they own in different villages. The petitioners have also not been able to provide the details of the loan that they had taken from different relatives or friends for the purpose of purchase of these properties and therefore the said p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... superseded or replaced a new provision of law. According to the respondents, the original Act of 1988 is still in operation and also in force and by way of Amendment Act of 2016, certain additional provisions have been incorporated in respect of the procedures to be adopted and also in respect of making the provisions more stringent and deterrent. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the respondents cannot be said to be without force of law or beyond purview of the Act of 1988. 8. It was also the contention of the respondents that the present writ petition in its present form is premature insofar as it is only at notice stage and whatever contentions that the petitioners indent to raise so far as the applicability of the Act of 1988 is concerned, it can still be raised by the petitioners before the authorities concerned and thereafter the provision of law itself has a remedy of appeal before whom also the petitioners can raise all these grounds and therefore the writ petition deserves to be rejected. 9. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record, the undisputed fact of the present writ petition is that whatever properties tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the petitioner in respect of the properties which were purchased or acquired prior to 01.11.2016, it would be necessary to read the Act of 1988 as a whole including the Provisions inserted by way of Act of 2016. 14. Sub Section 3 of Section 1 reads as under: (3) The provisions of Sections 3, 5 and 8 shall come into force at once, and the remaining provisions of this Act shall be deemed to have come into force on the 19th day of May, 1988. The aforesaid section clearly indicates that the law as it stands shall be deemed to have come into force on the 19th day of May, 1988. 15. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 3 reads as under: (2) Whoever enters into any benami transaction shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. (3) whoever enters into any benami transaction on and after the date of commencement of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), be punishable in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter VII. 16. Both these provisions of law have been inserted by way ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an entirely different contextual background and facts of the said case also is entirely different as compared to the facts of the present case. 20. Moreover, the said judgment has been passed in a Civil Appeal assailing the judgment and decree passed from the Appeal decided by the High Court affirming the judgment of decree passed by the Civil Court in a suit for partition. In addition, the said judgment so far as referring to the provisions of amended Act of 2016 is concerned, was keeping in view the Provisions of unamended Sub sections (2) of Section 3 which stood omitted by the Act of 2016, dealing with the property purchased by a person in the name of his wife or unmarried daughter. Thus, the principles or ratio laid down in the said judgment would not be applicable in the given facts and circumstances of the present case. If we take into consideration, the provisions Sub Section 3 of Section 1 and read it along with other amendments which have been brought in the Act of 1988 vide Amendment Act of 2016, this Court is compelled to reach to the conclusion that proceedings drawn against the petitioners in the given factual matrix of the case cannot be found fault with. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
