9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erty had been issued to the petitioner. There is no real controversy in respect of the essential facts that are necessary to address the challenge to the impugned orders. Admittedly, the said property had been purchased by Sh. Anand Kumar Bagla prior to issuance of notice under Section 68-H(1) of the NDPS Act. After securing a legal opinion, the Director, NCB had, by a letter dated 06.01.1994, duly informed that the said property had been incorrectly frozen and that the order had been passed inadvertently. The Competent Authority had also accepted that the said property had been transferred to Smt. Krishna Devi Bagla and Sh. Anand Kumar Bagla in good faith and prior to passing the freezing orders under the NDPS Act - In the given circumstances, the Competent Authority was required to consider the same before passing any fresh order of forfeiture. Although the said order of forfeiture was required to be passed by 31.07.1993, the impugned orders were passed almost twenty-seven years thereafter and that too without considering that it had been duly accepted by the Competent Authority that the said property is to excluded from the proceedings. The order passed by the Competent Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same is referred in an order dated 12.03.2020. The said orders are hereinafter referred to as ‗the impugned orders . 2. The petitioner claims that he is a bonafide purchaser, for valuable and adequate consideration, of the said property and the impugned orders are, thus, without jurisdiction. In addition, the petitioner also challenges the impugned orders on the ground that the same were passed without any notice to the petitioner and without affording him any opportunity to be heard. 3. The petitioner further claims that the impugned orders have been passed in ignorance of an order dated 17.01.1994 (Order File No. 2/CA/LKO/NDPS/93/50) passed by the Competent Authority, Lucknow, whereby the Competent Authority had found that the petitioner s predecessor-in-interest, one Mr. Anand Kumar Bagla, was a bonafide purchaser of the said property. Consequently, the said property had been excluded from the application of Chapter V-A of the NDPS Act, which relates to forfeiture of illegally acquired property. Factual Background 4. The said property has been sought to be forfeited on the ground that it was allegedly acquired from proceeds of illicit traffic in drugs by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Government of India, High Court, Lucknow Bench forwarded his opinion by a letter dated 05.11.1993. He opined that Smt. Krishna Devi Bagla and Anand Kumar Bagla had purchased the said property prior to the date of the notice; the purchase was for an adequate consideration; and the same was excluded from the notice under the NDPS Act. 10. Following the receipt of the said opinion, the Deputy Director, Narcotics Control Bureau, Varanasi sent a letter dated 06.01.1994 intimating that the said property had been wrongly frozen. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents indicates that he was of the view that the order freezing the said property had been passed inadvertently. 11. In view of the above, the Competent Authority and Administrator, Lucknow issued a letter dated 17.01.1994 (F No. 2/CA/LKO/NDPS/48-52) accepting that the said property was to be excluded from the schedule of properties of the affected person and/or his relatives/associates. 12. In the meantime, Sh. V.K. Rai as well as Smt. Krishna Devi Bagla and Sh. Anand Kumar Bagla filed appeals before Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Properties, New Delhi impugning the forfeiture order. The appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) of the NDPS Act. After securing a legal opinion, the Director, NCB had, by a letter dated 06.01.1994, duly informed that the said property had been incorrectly frozen and that the order had been passed inadvertently. The Competent Authority had also accepted that the said property had been transferred to Smt. Krishna Devi Bagla and Sh. Anand Kumar Bagla in good faith and prior to passing the freezing orders under the NDPS Act. A letter to the aforesaid fact was issued on 17.01.1994 for accepting that the said property mentioned at Serial No.(XIII) of the schedule of properties, be excluded from the proceedings. In the meanwhile, the appeal preferred against the forfeiture order was also allowed and the forfeiture order had been set aside. 19. In the given circumstances, the Competent Authority was required to consider the same before passing any fresh order of forfeiture. Although the said order of forfeiture was required to be passed by 31.07.1993, the impugned orders were passed almost twenty-seven years thereafter and that too without considering that it had been duly accepted by the Competent Authority that the said property is to excluded from the proceedings. 20. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
