9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (3) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereinafter referred as "the Act"). On December 12, 1978, notice under section 6(1) of the Act was issued in her name with respect to the following properties : Sl. No. Area Description (i) 8K Agricultural land in Vill. Behbalpur, Teh. Garhshankar, Distt. Hoshiarpur, Khata No. 165/294, Khasra Nos. 11/22/1 and 2. (ii) 18K-10M Agricultural land in Vill. Behbalpur, Teh. Garhshankar Distt. Hoshiarpur, Khata No. 87/161, Khasra Nos. 23/21/2, 27/5, 6/1. (iii) 3M Agricultural land in Vill. Atta, Distt. Jalandhar. (iv) 7M Agricultural land in Vill. Sanaur Khurd, Distt. Jalandhar. In village Balon, Teh. Nawanshahar, Distt. Jalandhar (v) 41K-9M Khata No. 3/3, Khasra Nos. 10/1, 1/3, 12/2, 19, 20/1, 24, 25/1, 20/4/2, 5/1, 612, 7/1 and one-si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iv) have been ordered to be forfeited. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that, after the Appellate Tribunal had remanded the case to the Competent Authority for a fresh decision, the Competent Authority issued a fresh notice under section 6(1) of the Act on August 4, 1983, without recording fresh "reasons to believe" in terms thereof. In the absence of the recording of the fresh "reasons to believe", the proceedings against the appellant stand vitiated and are liable to be set aside. The contention is without merit. The Competent Authority had recorded "reasons to believe" in terms of section 6(1) of the Act on December 12, 1978, when the first notice under section 6(1) was issued. The notice under section 6(1) issued on Decem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rms of section 2(2)(c) with the coming into force of the Act. An order of divorce passed after the coming into force of the Act is irrelevant for the purposes of these proceedings. She would, therefore, continue to be an affected person under section 2(2)(c) irrespective of the order of divorce obtained by her against Pakhar Singh on July 8, 1980. This apart, it has been held above that the second show-cause notice under section 6(1) of the Act was redundant. The impugned order passed by the Competent Authority against the appellant is in fact based on the notice under section 6(1) of the Act issued in 1978, when she was, admittedly, the wife of Pakhar Singh. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that it is not proved that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 7(1) of the Act against the appellant have been unduly delayed and the impugned order bad on that account. We find hardly any force in this contention. It is correct to say that the proceedings have been somewhat delayed but the appellant herself is not completely absolved of her responsibility. The appellant purchased land measuring eight kanals detailed at item No. (i) above for Rs. 8,000 on June 26, 1972. It is so stated in the " reasons to believe " recorded by the Competent Authority on December 12, 1978. The land measuring 18 kanals and 10 marlas detailed at item No. (ii) was purchased for Rs. 7,000 on May 11 1973. It is again so stated in the " reasons to believe " recorded on December 12, 1978. The properties at ite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
