9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rgument that the property belongs to him, he or his legal heirs could have challenged the order of forfeiture of property. However, neither he nor his legal heirs ever challenged the seizure of property, rather challenge is made by the deceased appellant who claims herself to be not the owner but the tenant. The logical consequence of the above would be that while the alleged owner has not challenged the order of forfeiture of the property, the person having no ownership right is challenging it despite the fact that the property is rented out and the forfeiture may not affect because the tenant can be evicted by the means of law. The property in question was acquired by Dawood Ibrahim Sheikh by taking possession somewhere in the year 1990 and thereupon given to his sister and Rs.80 lakhs were invested on the property. Dawood Ibrahim Sheikh was subjected to assessment by the Income Tax Department and the amount spent on the property was added. Thus, argument of the appellant cannot be accepted. We have otherwise analysed the rent receipts recently submitted by the appellant to show regular payment of rent to K.M. Pardawala and now his legal heirs. The payments therein are not throug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acquired out of the illegal earning by Dawood Ibrahim Sheikh. The appellant, however, submitted that the property in question is a rented premises in her hands thus not liable to be forfeited. The specific statement was made about the ownership of the property to be of K.M Pardawala. However, the argument of the appellant was not accepted and, therefore, the order of the forfeiture of the property was passed. 3. The appellant Hasina Ibrahim Parkar died during the pendency of the appeal and after a long period, an application to bring her legal heirs on record was filed. It was an incomplete application as all the legal heirs were not brought on record. However, significant time has expired thereupon and the application remained pending. In absence of all the legal heirs of the appellant Hasina Ibrahim Parker on record, the application is liable to be dismissed. The appeal could have been dismissed on that ground but we would pass order even on merit on the appeal which remained pending for many years even after the application. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the property in question does not belong to the appellants, rather it is of K.M Pardawala, thus cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be on rent and thus she should not have been aggrieved by the forfeiture of the property as her right would not be affected even on forfeiture if title lies with other persons as per the statement of the appellant. The fact, however, is that the income tax assessment returns have been used by the Competent Authority to find out the ownership of the property. The estimated investment of Rs.80 lakhs was made on the property out of illegal earning. 8. It is submitted that if the appellants are not the owners or they are not holder of the property, then there remains no reason to challenge the forfeiture. The appellant can be evicted by the means provided under the law. The fact, however, is that the property was acquired by using illegal earning of Dawood Ibrahim. The fact aforesaid stands proved by the conduct of the party itself. If the ownership of the property would have been of someone else, he would have definitely challenged the order but till date no such challenge has been made by so-called title holder K.M. Pardawala and his legal heirs. Who has challenged the order is allegedly to be the tenant of the property. The fact remains that the deceased appellant not only acquir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of Rs.80 lakhs. By that time Dawood Ibrahim got involved in illegal activities and his earning was used to acquire the property and thereby holding of many properties was to be illegal, the order for its forfeiture was passed. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents has argued the case even in reference to the rent receipts produced by the appellant's son said to be the legal heir along with others not on record. The signature on the rent receipts varies and many receipts are even unsigned. It seems to be nothing but a document fabricated by the legal heir and thus an oral prayer was made to send it for investigation after registration of a criminal case and if it is found that the appellant has committed forgery, appropriate proceeding be directed. Otherwise, the platform of the Tribunal is used to make incorrect and false statement of facts. 14. It is further submitted that if K.M. Pardawala is said to be the owner of the property, the Municipal record or any other record to establish his ownership could have been filed and otherwise if it is a property owned by K.M. Pardawala, then he would have come forward to challenge the order of forfeiture but no such effort was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awood Ibrahim Sheikh in the name of his relatives were forfeited to the Central Government under the Act of 1976. Dawood Ibrahim Sheikh and his deceased sister were not having known sources of income thus huge amount invested by them was attributable to the smuggling activities of Dawood Ibrahim Sheikh. The impugned order of forfeiture of the property was passed even after taking note of the investment of Rs.80 lakhs on construction to run the Guest House. The value of investment in the property was estimated by Income-Tax Department and assessment order for it was also passed. Taking into consideration the huge investment of Rs.80 lakhs, it was taken to be out of the earning of Dawood Ibrahim Sheikh from his criminal activities, otherwise deceased appellant failed to disclose any source to invest Rs.80 lakhs. The material placed before the authority was taken to be sufficient for passing the order of forfeiture of the property. 19. The case taken up by the appellant is that the forfeiture of the property is without consideration of the fact that the deceased appellant is only a tenant thus could not have been subjected to forfeiture. The owner of the property was K.M. Pardawala. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Ibrahim Sheikh and thereupon huge amount was invested on it. They could not disclose the sources to invest huge amount of Rs.80 lakhs and in absence of which the Income Tax Department added entire investment in the hands of Dawood Ibrahim Sheikh and accordingly seizure of the property was ordered. 22. The appellant has shown the property to be under the ownership of K.M. Pardawala. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the property belongs to him, he or his legal heirs could have challenged the order of forfeiture of property. However, neither he nor his legal heirs ever challenged the seizure of property, rather challenge is made by the deceased appellant who claims herself to be not the owner but the tenant. The logical consequence of the above would be that while the alleged owner has not challenged the order of forfeiture of the property, the person having no ownership right is challenging it despite the fact that the property is rented out and the forfeiture may not affect because the tenant can be evicted by the means of law. The property in question was acquired by Dawood Ibrahim Sheikh by taking possession somewhere in the year 1990 and thereupon given to hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
