Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

Roshan Manzil Tenants Association vs Competent Authority on 29 June, 2018

Author: S.G. Shah

Bench: S.G. Shah

C/SCA/6143/1999                                      CAV JUDGMENT




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

      R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6143 of 1999
                         With
      R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3732 of 2002
                         With
      R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4348 of 2001

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. SHAH Sd/-

=======================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to Yes see the judgment ?

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of No the judgment ?

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of No law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?

======================================================= NAZIR AHMED USMANGANI DIGMAR Versus COMPETENT AUTHORITY ======================================================= Appearance:

MR RS SANJANWALA(728) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 DELETED(20) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2 MR DHAVAL M BAROT(2723) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR(1010) HARSHIL D SHUKLA for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 RULE NOT RECD BACK(63) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 3,4 ======================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. SHAH Date : 29/06/2018 COMMON CAV JUDGMENT

1. Heard   learned   advocates   for   the   respective  parties. Perused the record. 

Page 1 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT

2. All   these   three   petitions   are   more   or   less  pertaining to the common detenu and properties owned  by his family though arising out of different impugned  order at different time. Therefore, when so many factual  details   are   common   and  correlated,   these   petitions  are  heard   together   and   decided   together   by   this   common  judgment   to   avoid   repetition   of   same   facts   in   three  different judgments and more particularly, when result of  decision in one main petition will affect the decision in  another petition(s). 

3. Though   discussion   of   factual   details   and   law  point   would   be   common,   it   would   be   appropriate   to  recollect the basic facts of each petition separately, which  is   summarized  as  under   without  reproducing   the   same  factual details repeatedly for the next petition(s). 

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6143/1999

4. The   petitioner   herein   is  Nazir   Ahmed  Usmangani   Digmar   as legal heir and representative of  his   mother   Roshanbibi   Usmangani   Digmar   as   well   as  Shamabanu Nazirahmed Digmar.

5. Petitioner   has   challenged   the   judgment   and  order   dated   8.6.1999   by   respondent   No.2   -   Appellate  Tribunal for Forfeited Property under the Smugglers and  Page 2 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT Foreign   Exchange   Manipulators   (Forfeiture   of  Property)   Act,   1976   (hereinafter   referred   as  `SAFEMA') .   By  such  impugned  judgment   the   appellate  authority   has   confirmed   order   to   forfeit   28%   share   in  aggregate belonging to deceased Roshanbibi Usmangani  Digmar   and   Shamabanu   Nazirahmed   Digmar   in   the  property known as  "Shama  Theater"   with building and  equipment and other assets by confirming the order of  respondent No.1 u/S. 7 of  SAFEMA. 

6. The   petitioner   has   also   prayed   to   restrain   the  first   respondent   being   Competent   Authority   under  SAFEMA from taking possession of the said 28% share in  partnership   firm   on   the   basis   of   their   notice   dated  7.7.1999 issued u/S. 19(1) of the  SAFEMA.

7. Such petition was filed in August, 1999 wherein  probably first order is only dated 23.12.1999 which reads  as under: ­ "Heard Ld. Advocate Mr.Kazi, Mr.Sanjanwala & Mr.Jayant Patel for   the parties. The matter is awaiting admission. However, by way of an   interim   arrangement   the   following   order   is   passed   which   is   also  executable even if the matter is not admitted. 

2. There   is   no   dispute   at   present   about   the   fact   that   the   petitioner   has   only   28%   shares   in   the   property.   The   dispute   is   whether that right is rightly forfeited or not.

3. Without   observing   anything   on   the   maintainability   of   this   petition, it is directed that the Competent Authority/respondent No.1   shall   proceed   to   auction   the   whole   property   in   question   and   the   petitioner as well as the other owners having 72% of the share will   Page 3 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT be entitled to participate in the auction. It is also directed that the   upset   prince   (reserve   price)   shall   be   fixed   by   the   Authority   in  consultation  with the petitioner as well as the other owners. After   obtaining the Valuation report from an authorised Valuer if there is   any dispute regarding upset price, it would be open for the parties to  approach   this   Court.   On   completion   of  the   auction   proceedings   &   realization  of the price, the sale proceeds will be deposited  in this   Court  and   the  Court  shall  thereafter   pass  appropriate  orders.   The   auction   proceedings   shall   be   completed   at   the   earliest  preferably  before 10.2.2000. S.O. to 10.2.2000."

8. Thereafter,   order   dated   26.4.2004   reads   as  under: ­ "It appears that this Court had passed an order on 23/12/99 that  the Competent Authority/respondent No.1 shall proceed to auction   the whole property in question and the petitioner as well as the other   owners having 72% of the share will be entitled to participate in the   auction. It was also directed that upset price shall be fixed by the  authority   in   consultation   with   the   petitioner   as   well   as   the   other   owners,   after   obtaining   the   valuation   report   from   an   authorized   Valuer. It was further directed that in case of any dispute regarding   upset price, it would be open to the parties to approach this Court. It   was also directed that on completion of the auction proceedings and   realization  of the price, the sale proceeds will be deposited  in this   Court and the Court will, thereafter, pass appropriate orders (with   respect to disbursement). 

2. It is stated at the bar that the auction was held in terms of the  aforesaid   order,   fetching   a   price   of   Rs.14,51,000/­   (Fourteen   Lac   Fifty One Thousand Only) as the total sale proceeds. By a subsequent   order of this Court, the aforesaid amount was deposited before the   Registry of this Court. Therefore, a question would now arise about   the disbursement of the aforesaid amount. 

3.   The   office   to   verify   about   the   disbursement   in   respect   of   the   aforesaid   amount   or   any   part   thereof   and   shall   state   as   to   the   amount which is now lying with the Registry. S.O. to 27/04/04."

9. However,   thereafter,   by   judgment   and   order  dated   6.5.2004,   the   petition   was   allowed   in   following  terms: ­ Page 4 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT "16.   For   the   foregoing   reasons   and   for   the   reasons  recorded   in   Special   Civil   Application   No.4348/2001   dated   16/04/04,   this   petition is allowed. 

16.1   The   order   of   the   second   respondent   dated   08/06/1999,   confirming the order of forfeiture of 28% share of the petitioners,   passed   by   the   Competent   Authority   u/S.7   of   The   Smugglers   and   Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 on   14/05/1979 as well as the order dated 07/07/1999 passed by the   said Authority, forfeiting 28% share of the petitioner, are ordered to   be   quashed   and   set   aside   and   the   Respondents   are   permanently   restrained   from  taking  possession  of  the  said  partnership  share  of   28%   in   aggregate   in   "Shama   Theater"   on   the   basis   of   the   Notice   dated 07/07/99 issued u/S.19(1) of the SAFEMA. 

17. It is directed that the Registry will pay the aforesaid amount   of Rs.14,51,000/­ (Rupees Fourteen Lacs Fifty One Thousand Only)   being   the   share   of   deceased   Roshanbibi   U.   Digmar   and   deceased  Shamabanu N. Digmar to the present petitioner, as their heir and   legal representative, after due verification and  identity in respect of   the petitioner."

10. However,   it   seems   that   such   judgment   was  challenged   in  Letters   Patent   Appeal  No.124   of   2005  wherein   by   common   Judgment   and   order   dated  18.7.2014   with  Letters   Patent   Appeal  Nos.127   and  129 of 2005 , the Division Bench of this Court has relied  upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case  of  Union   of   India   v.   Mohanlal   Likumal   Punjabi  reported  in 2004(3)  SCC  628   and unreported decision  of   this   Court   in  Letters   Patent   Appeal  Nos.1053   and  1054 of 2003  and held that since detention order passed  under  "COFEPOSA"   [Conservation   of   Foreign  Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act,  1974]  was revoked u/S.11(1)(b) and thereby when such  Page 5 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT revocation is not based on report of Advisory Board, then  proviso (i) to section 2(2)(b) of SAFEMA is not attracted  and as such, operation of SAFEMA is not excluded.   

11. By   such   determination,   Division   Bench   has  allowed   the   appeal,   quashing   and   setting   aside   the  judgment   and   order   dated   6.5.2004   and   26.4.2004   in  connected Special  Civil   Applications  and  remanded the  matters to the learned Single Judge for hearing them a  fresh.   Based   upon   such   order,   matters   were   listed   for  fresh hearing. 

12. Now, if we come to the factual details, it may be  summarized as under: ­ [12.1] Petitioner ­ Nazir Ahmed Usmangani Digmar  was   detained   under   COFEPOSA   by   order   dated  22.12.1975   of   Government   of   Goa.   Such   order   of  detention of the petitioner has been revoked by the Chief  Secretary   of   Government   of   Goa   by   order   dated  21.3.1977   and   in   the   name   of   Administrator   of  Government of Goa; copy of such order of revocation of  detention   is   at   Annexture   `A'   with   the   petition   which  confirms that such revocation is under sub­section (1) of  Section   11   of   the   COFEPOSA.   Therefore,   there   is   no  clarity that whether its under section 11(1)(a) or 11(1)

(b) but when original order is by the State Government  only   it   is   to   be   presumed   that   order   of   revocation   is  Page 6 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT u/S.11(1)(a).

[12.2] After   such   order   of   revocation,   the  respondent   No.1   being   Competent   Authority   under  SAFEMA   has   in   April,   1977   and   March,   1979   issued  notice under section 6(1) of SAFEMA to one M/s. Parvati  Exhibitors, a partnership firm (which is respondent No.3  herein)   and   partner   of   such   firm   (who   is   respondent  No.4).  

[12.3] In   such   partnership   firm   namely;     M/s.  Parvati   Exhibitors,   mother   of   the   detenu   Roshanbibi  Usmangani Digmar was holding 5% share whereas wife  of   the   detenu  namely;   Shamabanu   holding  23%  share.  Detenu   being   petitioner   herein   is   legal   heir   and  representative of his deceased mother and deceased wife  who expired respectively in the year 1995 and 1997. In  addition   to   mother   and   wife   of   detenu   /   petitioner  herein, M/s. Parvati Exhibitors was having other partners  namely;   Parvatiben   Bhulabhai,   Bijiyabhai   Bhagwanbhai  and Haji Mastan. Similarly to the revocation of detention  order   of   the   petitioner,   the   detention   of   Makanbhai  Bijiyabhai was quashed by the Bombay High Court and  proceeding under SAFEMA in the case of Makanbhai was  subsequently   quashed   by   the   Gujarat   High   Court.  Similarly, the order of detention of Haji Mastan was also  quashed by Bombay High Court. However, since relatives  and   partners   of   such   detenu   namely;   Makanbhai  Page 7 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT Bijiyabhai,   Haji   Mastan   and   present   petitioner   are  partners   in   M/s.   Parvati   Exhibitors,   notice   under  SAFEMA   was   issued   to   M/s.   Parvati   Exhibitors   also,  initially, in April, 1977 and a fresh notice again in March,  1979.  However, after prolong proceeding, the only issue  remains   in   such   show   cause   notice   and   proceeding   is  with   reference   to   one   cinema   hall   namely;  `Shama   Theater'  with   reference   to   cost   of   the   construction   of  such   theater   and   the   source   of   funds   for   said  construction.   It   is   alleged   that   after   theater   was  constructed   mother   of   the   detenu   namely;   Roshanbibi  Usmangani   Digmar   in   the   firm   was   brought   in  partnership   and,   therefore,   she   was   given   5%   share  whereas   wife   of   the   detenu   Shamabanu   Nazirahmed  Digmar   had   invested   Rs.1,00,000/­   in   the   firm   and,  therefore she was holding 23% share in the partnership. 

[12.4] The Competent Authority has considered and  held that the firm did not produce satisfactory evidence  with regard to the total cost of investment and source of  said   investment   and,   therefore   passed   an   order   dated  14.5.1979 to forfeit the said property being cinema hall  namely; `Shama Theater'. 

[12.5] M/s.   Parvati   Exhibitors   had   challenged   the  validity of such auction under COFEPASA and SAFEMA  by filing Special Civil Application No.2331 of 1979 before  this   High   Court   wherein   interim   relief   was   granted  Page 8 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT against the order by Competent Authority. M/s. Parvati  Exhibitors had also filed an appeal before the Appellate  Tribunal being FPA No.36/AHD/79­80. However, during  pendency   of   such   appeal,   the   Special   Civil   Application  before the High Court  was allowed in view of the fact  that   detention   orders   of   the   partners   of   the   firm   were  quashed and set aside. 

[12.6] Such   order   dated   8.8.1994   in   Special   Civil  Application   No.2331   of   1978   with   Special   Civil  Application   No.2581   of   1979   and   Special   Civil  Application Nos.594 and 595 of 1980 is at Annexture `B'  wherein   the   Division   Bench   has   passed   the   following  order: ­ "..... It is represented that the detention order of the detenu has been   quashed by an order of the Court. As a consequence thereof, the order   under SAFEMA has also to be quashed. The petitions are dismissed   accordingly...."

[12.7] However,   respondents   have   preferred   Misc.  Civil Application No.865 of 1995 contending that though  the   order   of   detention   of   Makanbhai   and   Haji   Mastan  were quashed, the detention order of the petitioner was  not quashed by the High Court and, therefore, it survive  and hence SAFEMA proceeding may go on. There is no  clarity that when such application was allowed but it is  admitted position that such application was allowed by  the High Court irrespective of order dated 21.3.1997 by  the State of Goa revoking the detention of the petitioner.

Page 9 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT

[12.8] Therefore,   petitioner   has   no   option   but   to  continue with the appeal before the appellate authority  wherein appellate authority has passed orders after few  years.   One   such   order   is   produced   on   record   at  Annexture `C' and impugned order at Annexture `D'. The  perusal of Annexture `C' and `D' makes it clear that in  such   appeal   preferred   by   M/s.   Parvati   Exhibitors,   the  Appellate Tribunal has considered that the order under  SAFEMA is not in piece­meal against the detenu but it is  whole   against   the   partnership   firm   and,   therefore,  whether appeal will survive or not pursuant to revocation  order   of   detenu   by   Court   is   the   core   issue.  However,  when appeal is finally decided by impugned judgment  dated 8.6.1999,  the Appellate  Authority  recorded  the  submissions by the Deputy Director of the Competent  Authority   under   SAFEMA   being   respondent   No.1  herein   that   the   order   of   revocation   of   detention   of  Nazir  Ahmed  Usmangani  Digmar,  present  petitioner,  was   made   on   21.9.1977   pursuant   to   lifting   of   the  emergency   on   the   very   same   date   and   was   not  conscious  order of revocation  made  after application  of   mind   by   the   concerned   authorities.   Whereas   the  appellate   tribunal   has   considered   the   provisions   of  Section   2   of   the   SAFEMA   for   holding   that   since  detention  order   of  Bijiyabhai  Bhagwanbhai  and  Haji  Mastan   was   quashed   by   the   Court,   order   by   the  Competent Authority to forfeit shares of their relatives is  Page 10 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT set   aside   by   allowing   their   appeal   but   dismissing   the  appeal   so   far   as   share   of   Usmangani   Digmar   and  Shamabanu   Nazirahmed   Digmar   are   concerned.   It   is  surprising   to   note   that   appellant   before   the   appellate  authority   was   M/s.   Parvati   Exhibitors   and   not   their  partners, however, the appellate authority has bifurcated  its   decision   differently   for   different   partners   by  confirming   the   order   under   SAFEMA   only   against   two  partners   i.e.   Roshanbibi   Usmangani   Digmar   and  Shamabanu   Nazirahmed   Digmar.   Based   upon   such  decision,   the   Competent   Authority   has   issued   a   notice  dated 7.7.1999 under section 19(1) of the SAFEMA for  taking possession of 28% shares holding by Roshanbibi  Usmangani Digmar and Shamabanu Nazirahmed Digmar  in   M/s.   Parvati   Exhibitors   and   therefore   petitioner   has  preferred this petition.

[12.9] It may be recollected here that pending such  proceeding   Roshanbibi   Usmangani   Digmar   and  Shamabanu   Nazirahmed   Digmar   were   died   and,  therefore, petitioner being their legal heirs has continued  such proceeding. 

  

13. The   main   grievance   of  the   petitioner   is  to  the  effect that;

-  detention   order   of  Nazir   Ahmed   Usmangani  Digmar   was   revoked   as   back   as   on   21.3.1977   and,  Page 11 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT therefore, proceeding under SAFEMA initiated thereafter  cannot continue,

-  the   tribunal   has   erred   in   considering   that  revocation order was not on merits but was pursuant to  lifting of emergency and, therefore, it is also contended  by   respondents   that   it   was   not   a   conscious   order   of  revocation,

-  once detention order is revoked, the whole basis of  SAFEMA proceeding would come to an end and cannot  be continued,

-  The   proceeding   under   SAFEMA   was   initiated  against   the   partnership   firm   namely;   M/s.   Parvati  Exhibitors which cannot be continued as the firm is not  an   associate   of   the   detenu   ­   Nazir   Ahmed   Usmangani  Digmar,

-  There is no separate order against the partners of  the firm, 

-  The   proceeding   against   the   firm   cannot   be  continued only because relative of the detenu is partner  in such firm, but they are not the sole partners as there  are other partners also, 

-  The   order   of   detention   and   proceeding   under  Page 12 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT SAFEMA against one of the partner namely; Haji Mastan  was dropped,

-  Thereby when order of detention against co­detenu  has come to an end in absence of any specific evidence  against present detenu, there cannot be any order under  SAFEMA   only   because   detenu   could   not   challenge   the  order of detention either at the relevant time or could  not succeed in such challenge before action taken under  SAFEMA because it is settled legal position that order of  detention   can   be   challenged   even   at   the   time   of  challenging the order under SAFEMA.

-  Order   of   detention   of   Nazir   Ahmed   Usmangani  Digmar   was   also   held   invalid   by   judgment   and   order  dated 16.4.2004 in Special Civil Application No.4348 of  2001   by   the   petitioner   (though   Letters   Patent   Appeal  against such judgment has been allowed and matter is  remanded back to the learned Single Judge for hearing it  a fresh, with due respect it is to noted that the judgment  in Letters Patent Appeal No.124, 127 and 129 of 2005  dated 18.7.2004 is mainly dealing with the continuation  of SAFEMA proceeding alone against all the petitioners  and   does   not   discuss   the   judgment   and   order   dated  16.4.2004   holding   the   conviction   of   the   petitioner   as  illegal   so   as   to  quash  and  set   aside   such   order   and  to  remand the matter back). Therefore, there is no reason  to believe that observations   and order dated 16.4.2004  Page 13 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT in   Special   Civil   Application   No.4348   of   2001   is   not  disturbed though that matter is remanded back.

-  No   notice   was   ever   served   on   legal   heirs   of  Roshanbibi   Usmangani   Digmar   and   Shamabanu  Nazirahmed Digmar and thereby no hearing was given to  the petitioner,

-  The   properties   of   the   partners   cannot   stand  forfeited in case of SAFEMA proceeding against the firm,

14. It is to be recollected here that by order of this  Court,   the   properties   in   question   was   auctioned   and  three other partners of  M/s. Parvati Exhibitors has been  duly   paid   their   72%   share   while   28%   share   of   the  petitioner is lying deposited in this Hon'ble Court with a  direction that necessary orders may be passed when this  petition is decided. With this reference, an order dated  6.12.1999 in order sheet, which is in hand written needs  to be recollected here, which reads as under: ­ "Heard   Mr.Kazi   for   the   petitioner   and   Mr.Jayant   Patel   for   the   respondent. 

Until further orders, the parties shall maintain status quo regarding   the properties in question with the clarification that the petitioner   shall continue to collect the rent from the tenants in respect of the   premises which are subject matter of this petition but the petitioner   shall deposit 28% of such amount in a separate bank account and   such amount shall not be withdrawn without express permission of  this Court or respondent authorities. The petitioner shall send the   intimation about the bank account to the respondent authorities. The   Page 14 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT petitioner   shall   also   not   transfer   in   any   manner   or   encumber   his   interest in the concerned property without leave of this Court. 

This order shall operate until further orders."

15. The   respondents  have   resisted   this   petition   on  several amongst following grounds: ­ ...  Roshanbibi   Usmangani   Digmar   and   Shamabanu  Nazirahmed   Digmar   are   relatives   of   Nazir   Ahmed  Usmangani Digmar who was detained under COFEPASA,

-  Four   partners   of   the   firm   are   relatives   of   the  different detenu whereas 5th partner of the firm is himself  a detenu, 

-  under  section   6(1)  of SAFEMA   notice  was  issued  on 21.3.1979 to M/s. Parvati Exhibitors to show cause as  to why the properties of the firm should not be forfeited  as illegally acquired properties, 

-   In   such   notice,   it   is   contended   that   the   cost   of  building,   furniture   and   fitting   is   estimated   at  Rs.11,53,600/­ by the valuer approved by IT Department  whereas   the   partnership   firm   has   shown   the   cost   at  Rs.5,37,200/­ only. (However,  it is also  admitted  fact  in   the   notice   that   the   construction   was   carried   out  during the year 1969­72 whereas notice was issued in  the   year   1979   and   there   is   no   disclosure   that   when  Page 15 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT valuation is carried out but there is reason to believe  that   it   must   have   been   carried   out   in   1978­79   only  and,   therefore,   it   becomes   clear   that   the  Competent  Authority   has   failed   to   consider   the   change   in  valuation between the year 1969­72 and 1978­79) ,

-   The   petitioner   did   not   avail   an   opportunity   of  hearing   and   hence   order   dated   14.5.1979   u/S.7   of  SAFEMA was passed,

-   It is also contended in para 2.3 of affidavit in reply  that   the   shares   of   the   relatives   of   the   detenu   were  acquired by the investment of the illegally earned money  of detenu Nazir Ahmed Usmangani Digmar   and hence,  the forfeiture of their shares is justified.

-   It   is   also   admitted   that   petitioner   was   collecting  monthly rent from the occupants of the shops. For giving  specific statement to the authority that they are tenants  of the petitioner and shall regularly paying the rent to  the   petitioner   and   they   were   aware   of   the   proceeding  and   requested   the   authority   to   continue   to   run   their  business   and   agreed   to   pay   the   monthly   rent   to   the  respondent.

-   It is also contended that premises were rented even  after issuance of show cause notice and that they have  taken away the possession of the rented shops also.

Page 16 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT

16. The additional affidavit of one Mr.G.C. Parihar,  Inspecting   Officer   of   respondent   No.1   dated   26.5.2000  confirms that against the valuation of Rs.15,75,670/­, the  property   was   sold   in   auction   at   the   price   of  Rs.14,51,000/­   and   such   amount   has   been   deposited  before this Court.  

[A] With such affidavit, respondents have produced on  record   valuation   report   of   the   property   by   Assistant  Valuation   Officer   of   Income   Tax   Department,   Baroda.  Unfortunately,   such report   is  not   property   legible.   It  is  surprising   that   how   Central   Government   counsel   are  producing such illegible documents on record and how  Registry is accepting it as such. 

17. In   view   of   above   facts   and   circumstances   and  submissions by both the sides, now, if we consider the  matter   on   merits,   it   becomes   clear   and   certain   that  petitioner   has   preferred   this   petition   as   legal   heir   of  deceased   mother   and   also   as   a   legal   heir   and   legal  representative of deceased wife. It is also undisputed fact  that   property   which   is   sought   to   be   forfeited   by  impugned   order   namely;  `Shama   Theater'  is   neither  owned as absolute owner by detenu himself nor by his  mother and wife. It is also undisputed fact that mother of  the detenu who is practically petitioner before us through  his legal heir was holding only 5% share in the property  Page 17 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT and similarly wife of the detenu who is petitioner before  us   through   his   legal   heir   (who   is   common   and  coincidentally he was detenu) was holding 23% share in  such property. Therefore only because detenu himself is  legal   heir   of   co­owner   of   the   property   in   question,   it  cannot   be   said   that   nexus   with   the   detenu   in   such  property is proved if there is no specific evidence to that  effect. Similarly, when it is undisputed fact that none of  the   petitioner   namely;   Roshanbibi   Usmangani   Digmar  and   Shamabanu   Nazirahmed   Digmar   were   absolute  owner   but   they  are   holding   5%  and  23%  share   in   the  property   respectively.   The   name   of   the   property   being  `Shama   Theater'  is   also   not   attributed   in   proprietary  right of Shamabanu Nazirahmed Digmar since she was  holding   only   23%   share.     Therefore,   unless   there   is  positive   evidence   about   nexus   between   the   illegal  activities and earnings by such activity by the detenu and  the   present   petitioners,   it   cannot   be   said   that   such  properties   are   subject   to   proceeding   under   SAFEMA.  Though   such   burden   may   be   rest   upon   the   persons  against whom notice under SAFEMA has been issued, it  is quite clear and obvious that such burden needs to be  proved by prima facie evidence because such inquiry is  quasi judicial inquiry and not the full fledge inquiry so as  to allow the parties to prove their case as provided under  CPC and / or Cr.P.C. as well as Evidence Act either by  calling   witnesses   or   by   calling   any  one   to  produce   the  documentary   evidence   in   favour   of   such   persons. 

Page 18 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT

Therefore, if petitioners were able to show that they have  sufficient   income   to   invest   some   amount   in   any   such  property then it is for the Competent Authority to inquire  and   investigate   and   prove   that   either   there   is   lack   of  sufficient income of the petitioners or the investment by  the petitioner is from the funds of the detenu. In absence  of such evidence on record, even prima facie evidence, it  cannot be said that there is nexus between the property  in question and activities and / or funds of the detenu.  Therefore, a benefit of doubt needs to be extended to the  petitioners,   more   particularly,   when   they   are   not   sole  owner of the property. 

18. Moreover, there is one another draw back in the  impugned order, inasmuch as, Competent Authority has  failed   to   serve   notice   upon   the   other   partners   and   to  safeguard their rights by not allowing them to save the  property as provided under Section 9 of the SAFEMA. For  the   purpose,   observation   and   discussion   by   this   Court  with   reference   to   the   provisions   of   Section   9   of   the  SAFEMA in Special Civil Application No.12085 of 2000 is  material wherein this Court  has in detail discussed the  provisions   of   SAFEMA   while   directing   the   Competent  Authority to consider the facts and circumstances afresh  for   passing   a   fresh   order   considering   the   provisions   of  Section   9   and   after   offering   an   opportunity   to   the  petitioners   in   accordance   with   law   before   passing   an  order of forfeiture of property. The relevant discussion in  Page 19 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT such judgment reads as under: ­ "7... If   we   consider   the   merits   of   the   matter,   before   discussing   factual details or legal aspect, one fact needs to be ascertained i.e.   whether respondents have bothered to proceed further in accordance   with the provisions of the SAFEMA or not, more particularly, as per   provisions of Section 9 etc. of SAFEMA, though it is contended by the   learned   advocate   Mr.Shukla   for   the   respondent   that   provision   of  Section 9 of the SAFEMA is not applicable to the present case. 

8. If we peruse the provisions of the SAFEMA, it becomes clear   that the powers of the Competent Authority to declare any property   as illegal and then to forfeit it to the Central Government is subject to   the provisions of the SAFEMA and not absolute base upon the factual  details alone. For the purpose, when order is referring sub Section   (3)   of   Section   7   of   SAFEMA,   it   would   be   appropriate   to   refer   it,   which reads as under: ­ Section 7 Forfeiture of property in certain cases:

(3)  Where the Competent Authority records a finding   under   this   Section   to   the   effect   that   any  property   is   illegally   acquired  property,  it  shall  declare   that such   property shall, subject to the provisions of this Act,   stand forfeited to the Central Government free from all  encumbrances. 

9. Thereby, now, plain reading of the Section makes it clear that   the   provision   envisages   the   right   on   the   Competent   Authority   to   declare any property as illegal and to pass an order of forfeiting the   property under the provisions of this Act and when the words "subject   to the provisions of this Act" is there, it becomes clear that all other   provisions   of   the   Act   are   relevant.   Therefore,   Section   9   is   equally   important and material which reads as under: ­

9.  Fine in lieu of forfeiture :

(1) Where the Competent Authority makes a declaration that   any   property   stands   forfeited   to   the   Central   Government  under Section 7 and it is a case' where the source of only a   part, being less than one­half of the income, earnings or assets   with which such property was acquired has not been proved to   the satisfaction of the Competent Authority, it shall make an   order giving an option to the person affected to pay, in lieu of   forfeiture, a fine equal to one and one­fifth times the value of   such part.

Explanation.­For the purpose of this sub­Section, the value of   any   part   of   income,   earnings   or   assets,   with   which   any   Page 20 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT property has been acquired, shall be­

(a) in the case of any part of income or earnings, the amount   of such part of income or earnings;

(b) in the case of any part of assets, the proportionate part of  the full value of the consideration for the acquisition of such   assets.

(2) Before making an order imposing a fine under sub­Section   (1),   the   person   affected   shall   be   given   a   reasonable   opportunity of being heard.

(3) Where the persons affected pays the fine due under sub­ Section (1) within such time as may be allowed in that behalf,   the   Competent   Authority,   may   by   order,   revoke   the   declaration of forfeiture under Section 7 and thereupon such   property shall stand released.

10. Bare perusal of Section 9 makes it clear that  only Competent   Authority shall make an order giving an option to the person affected   to pay in lieu of forfeiture, a fine equal to 1 and 1/5 th  times, the   value of such part. On the one hand, there are some explanations   and other provisions but on the other hand, when such provision is   very much clear that, when the word `shall' is used, the Competent   Authority is bound to make an order giving an option to the person   affected to pay a fine in lieu of forfeiture. 

11. Irrespective of all other arguments and submissions, so also   factual details, it becomes clear and certain that ultimately the aim   of   the   legislature   is   to   get   the   value   of   such   illegally   acquired   properties  for   its  benefit.  For   the  purpose,  after  acquisition,   if the   Competent   Authority   or   the   government   has   to   dispose   off   such   property by public auction, it becomes clear that their ultimate goal   is   to   encash   the   value   of   such   property   and,   therefore,   Section   9   makes it clear that before confirming the forfeiture of property, the   Competent Authority shall give an option to the affected person to   pay fine equal to 1 and 1/5th times, the value of such property in lieu   of   forfeiture.   Whatsoever   be   the   case,   government   and   Competent   Authority   may   not   have   to   initiate   the   auction   proceeding   which   would not only consume time of the government officers but incurred   some expenditure also. As against that, if affected person is ready and   willing to pay more amount than the value of such property as fine,   then, ultimately, goal of the authority / government would be over   and, therefore, it cannot be said that such provision is not mandatory   but discretionary and not applicable to the present case. 

Page 21 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT

12. Surprisingly, when provision of Section 9 is very much clear,   it   has   been   argued   and   submitted   by   learned   advocate   for   the   respondent   that   the   affected   party   does   not   mean   the   present   petitioners but it would mean detenu and his or her relatives only   and that when petitioners have purchased the property and, thereby,   pursuant to Section 11 when such transaction is null and void ab   initio, they cannot be considered as affected person. Though it may   be a settled legal position pursuant to provision of Section 11 of the   Act that  subsequent  transfer  after  the  statutory   notice  is   null and   void, it is nowhere confirmed that affected party means only detenu   and his / her relatives. 

13. It would be appropriate to recollect the factual observation in   the   case   of   Competent   Authority,  SAFEMA   v.   M.H.   Hameed  reported in 2009(3) KHC 295 (WA No.730 of 2009 decided on   30.9.2009)  by Division  Bench of Kerala High Court wherein it is   recorded that though the order of detention was not pursued by the   detenu   and   thus   he   was   detained   for   the   full   term,   he   proceeded  against action under the provisions of SAFEMA in respect of certain   properties,   which   stood   in   his   name   when   Competent   Authority   under SAFEMA passed an order on 20.2.1991 it was found that there   was unexplained investment in his name, however, by giving option   to him to pay the amount of fines in lieu of forfeiture, under section   9 of the Act. Accordingly, detenu exercised his option and paid the   fine and redeemed the property from forfeiture. 

14. It would be also necessary to recollect the factual details which   is emerging from the record of  Special Civil Application No.4222   of 2009 between Ilias Suleman Bhaya v. Union of India, wherein   Competent   Authority   under   SAFEMA   in   its   order   No.CA/AHD/R/2(c)/S­43/78­79   dated   14.11.1980   while   passing   the  order  to forfeit the  certain  properties  under  SAFEMA  recorded   that  it   is   submitted   before   him   that  when   complete   evidence   with   regard to the loan cannot be produced after lapse of so many years,   this is a fit case which falls under the provisions of Section 9 of the   ACT and relying upon such submission, the Competent Authority has   passed   an   order   that   since   more   than   half   of   the   investment   is   traceable to legal sources, fine of Rs.18,000/­ is levied under section   9 of the SAFEMA. Therefore, passing an order under Section 9 is not   obscure to the respondent but probably they are selective in passing   any such order under Section 9 of the Act for the reasons best known   to them.  

15. In   the   case   between   Competent   Authority   and   Administration v. Manilal Jalal being APO No.107 of 2013 with   GA No.1852/2010, the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court   has on 12.7.2013 confirmed the order of learned Single Judge that   Page 22 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT the writ petitioner ought to be permitted to redeem the property on   payment   of   fine   in   lieu   of   forfeiture   in   terms   of   Section   9   of   the   SAFEMA. 

16. The   principal   Act   being   COFEPASA;   so   also   the   SAFEMA   nowhere   defines   that   who   is   to   be   considered   as   affected   person.   Therefore, common meaning of the word  `affected person'  is to be   considered   wherein   it   is   very   much   clear   that   the   person   who   is   affected by any impugned order is to be treated as affected person. In   view of such fact, the petitioners can certainly be considered as an   affected   person   because   property   is   to   be   seized   from   him   and   possession is sought from him only, as he is bonafide purchaser for   value with possession since long.  

17. Reference   to   Section   11   is   also   material   which   does   not   confirm the stand of the Competent Authority. Section 11 of SAFEMA   reads as under: ­

11. Certain transfers to be null and void:

Where after the issue  of a notice  under Section  6 or under   Section   10,   any   property   referred   to   in   the   said   notice   is   transferred by any mode whatsoever such transfer shall, for   the purpose of the proceedings under this Act, be ignored and   if   such   property   is   subsequently   forfeited   to   the   Central   Government   under   Section   7,   then,   the   transfer   of   such   property shall be deemed to be null and void.

17. The bare reading of Section 11 makes it clear that the effect of   this Section i.e. declaring the transaction as deemed to be null and   void   is   to   be   affected   subsequently   to   forfeit   to   the   Central   Government.   Therefore,   though   the   respondent   can   ignore   the  transfer of the property for passing order under Section 7, it does not   confirm   that   order   under   Section   9   need   not   be   passed   by   the  Competent Authority when Section reads that "...if such property is   subsequently forfeited to the Central Government under Section  7,   then,  the transfer  of such property shall be deemed to be null and   void." 

18. The bare reading of Sections 9 and 11 makes it clear that the   Competent Authority shall initially make an order giving the option   to the person affected to pay fine in lieu of forfeiture and thereby if   affected person pays a fine that may be imposed by the Competent   Authority before confirming the forfeiture then there may not be an   order  of forfeiture  of the  property and  in  that case,  in absence  of   forfeiture, the transfer of property cannot be deemed to be null and   void. Therefore, in my opinion, Competent Authority needs to pass an   order under Section 9 before confirming to forfeit the property and to   Page 23 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT declare that sale transaction in favour of the petitioners are deemed   to be null and void pursuant to provisions of Section 11, if fine is not   paid. 

23. I am restraining myself from reproducing further observation   by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Gulshan Ahuja (Supra)  since   it   is   already  available   for   reference   by  all  but   certainly   rely   upon the observations made in this judgment which ultimately allows   the   writ   petition   by   quashing   the   order   of   Competent   Authority,   forfeiting  the   properties   of   the   petitioners   before   the   Hon'ble   High   Court based upon the similar facts that petitioners before the High   Court was bonafide purchaser for the value. Said judgment was never   challenged by the respondent before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and   hence it is final. 

27. At   this   stage,   reference   to  Section   19   -   Power   to   take   possession is also equally material which provides that: ­ (1) Where   any property has been declared to be forfeited to the   Central Government under this Act, or where the person affected has   failed to pay the fine due under sub­section (1) of section 9 within   the time allowed therefore under sub­section (3) of that section, the   Competent Authority may order the person affected as well as any   other person who may be in possession of the property to surrender   or deliver possession thereof to the Competent Authority or to any   person duly authorised by it in this behalf within thirty days of the   service of the order."

The above proviso makes it clear that even before taking the actual   physical possession, intimation to handover the possession in thirty   days is required, but in the present case, petitioner was never called   upon   to   handover   the   possession   and   directly,   order   of   deemed   possession was passed and then he was dispossessed but ultimately   this Court has by interim order allowed the petitioner to stay in the   same house.  

31. Reference to the judgment between Chandra Kumar Jain v.  Union   of   India   reported   in   2015(11)   SCC   427  is   relevant   to  support   final   order   and   determination   in   this   judgment   wherein   authority   under   SAFEMA   is   directed   to   permit   the   appellant   to   produce the material as they deem fit in their defence to prove that   order under SAFEMA cannot be passed. It is admitted fact the such   opportunity is not given to the petitioners..." 

19. Therefore, there is reason to grant prayer / relief  which   was   already   granted  in   Special   Civil   Application  Page 24 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT No.12085   of   2000   portion   of   which   is   reproduced  hereinabove which is also applicable in the present case.  However, in that case, the matter was remanded back to  the   Competent   Authority   for   passing   appropriate   order  under   Section   9   after   giving   reasonable   opportunity   to  both the sides. 

20. Whereas,   in   the   present   case   it   is   clear   and  certain   that   detention   order   of   co­detenu   has   been  quashed by competent Court.

21. However, so far as basic issues regarding order  of   detention   of   Nazir   Ahmed   Usmangani   Digmar   is  concerned, it is undisputed fact that there is no ground to  detain   the   petitioner   except   the   disclosure   by   the  Competent Authority in order of detention that petitioner  has been detained for effective execution of emergency.  However, it is also undisputed fact that emergency was  lifted   because   of   judicial   pronouncement   when   it   was  considered as improper and illegal and immediately on  lifting of emergency, all persons who were detained only  because   of   emergency   were   immediately   released   by  revocation of their detention orders pursuant to lifting of  emergency on very same day. If it is so, then, it is clear  that when government itself could not prove the validity  of  emergency and revoke   the  order of detention based  upon emergency, then, detention orders itself needs to be  termed   as   null   and   void   irrespective   of   completion   of  Page 25 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT such   order   or   irrespective   of   manner   in   which   it   is  revoked. Therefore, when respondents have also failed to  follow   the   strict   rules   for   detention   regarding   forming  grounds for detention and serving it to the detenu, the  detention order cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Even at  the   cost   of   repetition,   let   it   be   recollected   here   that  detention order was simply conveying that petitioner is  to be detained for effective implementation of emergency  without disclosing any illegal activities by him and such  detention order was revoked with effect from the lifting  of   emergency   which   was   by   all   means   improper   and  illegal.   Unfortunately,   the   competent   authorities   are  taking   disadvantage   of   their   situation   in   delaying   such  proceeding when they have no option but to revoke the  order   of   detention   on   lifting   of   emergency   which   was  condemned by one and all including present government  at the relevant time. 

22. At the same time, it cannot be ignored that in  appropriate   proceeding   the   detention   and   order   of  forfeiture   of   other   part   of   the   same   property   has  been  quashed by the competent Court on both the grounds i.e.  (1)  merits   as   well   as  (2)  legal   technicalities   and,  therefore, benefit of such order would certainly goes in  favour of the present petitioners. 

23. It is also undisputed fact that order of detention  of   other   co­detenu   has   already   been   quashed   and,  Page 26 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT therefore, if they all are detained together on same set of  facts   and   circumstances,   then,   only   because   present  petitioners could not chase the detention order together  with other two detenu at the relevant time, it cannot be  said that his conviction order is proper. 

24. Moreover,   the   record   shows   that   petitioners  have   explained   that   from   which   fund   they   have  purchased   the   property   in   question   but   if   Competent  Authority   is   not   satisfied   by   such   explanation,   they  should   have   offer   reasonable   opportunity   to   the  petitioners to produce some more evidence but without  offering   such   opportunity,   discarding   prima   facie  evidence produced by the petitioners results into material  irregularity   and   illegality   which   would   be   the   material  ground for allowing this petition. 

25. In view of above facts and circumstances, I do  not find any substance in the defence  version  so  as to  dismiss   this   petition.   Thereby,   I   endorse   the   pleadings  and   submissions   by   the   petitioner   so   as   to   allow   this  petition and, therefore, petition is allowed as prayed for  in terms of paragraph 22(A) with consequential relief to  disburse the amount of share of the petitioners which is  lying in cash with the present Registry. 

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.4348 of 2001 Page 27 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT

26. Present   petition   is   filed   by   legal   heir   of  Usmangani Digmar and his wife Roshanbibi Usmangani  Digmar   namely;   Nazir   Ahmed   Usmangani   Digmar   and  Imtiyaz   Usmangani   Digmar,   wherein   property   namely;  `Roshan   Manzil'  owned   jointly   by   Usmangani   Digmar  and   his   wife   Roshanbibi   Usmangani   Digmar   were  ordered   to   be   forfeited   under   SAFEMA   by   the  respondent. 

27. The   present   petition   is   similar   as   Special   Civil  Application   No.6143   of   1999,   details   of   which   is  recorded   herein   above.   Herein   the   petitioner   has  challenged the order dated 20.03.2001 by the Appellate  Tribunal under SAFEMA so also order dated 17.12.2000  by   respondent   No.1   being   the   Competent   Authority  under   SAFEMA   forfeiting   the   property   known   as  `Roshan Manzil'.  Such petition has been admitted by an  order   dated   20.06.2001   and   order   to   be   heard   with  Special   Civil   Application   No.6143   of   1999   was  passed,  details of which is narrated herein above. 

28. The facts of the petitioner so far as this petition  is concerned are summarized as under: ­

29. The   petitioner   No.1   was   detained   under  COFEPOSA   by   the   order   dated   22.12.1995   by   the  Government of Goa. 

Page 28 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT

30. However, such order of detention was revoked  on 21.03.1977 by the detaining authority.  The copy of  the order is at Annexure `A'.

31. Pursuant to detention of the petitioner, a notice  dated 04.12.1976 was issued by the respondent upon the  father   of   the   petitioner   Nos.1,   2   and   3   namely;  Usmangani   Digmar   and   husband   of   respondent   No.4  calling upon him to show cause that why the property  known   as  `Roshan   Manzil'  situated   at   Nani­Daman  should   not   be   declared   as   illegally   acquired   property.  Father of the petitioner had replied to such notice dated  30.01.1978   questioning   the   legality   of   the   notice   and  stating   that   he   has   built   the   building   with   the   income  earned   by   him   and   with   borrowed   funds   in   all  Rs.5,47,000/­   and   that,   property   was   not   acquired  illegally as defined under the SAFEMA. 

32. The father of the petitioner namely Usmangani  had   challenged   such   order   in   Special   Civil   Application  No.1788 of 1978.  However, it was dismissed pursuant to  decision   by   the   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   in   the   case   of  Attorney   General   of   India   vs.   Amrutlal   Pranjivan  reported   in   AIR   1994   SC   2179  whereby   validity   of  SAFEMA has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court  when petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity  of   Act   in   such   petition.  However,   before   such order   of  dismissal dated 09.08.1994 i.e. during the pendency of  Page 29 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT the petition before the High Court, further proceedings in  respect   of   notice   dated   04.12.1976   was   already   stayed  whereas Usmangani died in July 1978. 

33. Pursuant to dismissal of Special Civil Application  No.1788 of 1978, the SAFEMA proceedings were again  initiated against legal heirs of deceased by issuing show  cause   notice   under  Section   6(1)  of  of  the   SAFEMA   on  4.12.1976. 

34. It   was   contended   that   money   spent   in  constructing   building   was   not   properly   explained   and  valuation   by   the   Income   Tax   Department   was   highly  excessive.   However,   respondent   No.1   has   by   its  impugned   order   dated   17.02.2000   held   that   property  was illegally acquired and, therefore, same was forfeited  under Section 7 of the SAFEMA.

35. Petitioner   has   challenged   such   orders   of  forfeiture in FPA No.26/BOM/2000 before the Appellate  authority.  During pendency of such appeal, the appellate  authority has granted stay on condition to deposit rent by  the   first   petitioner   in   a   separate   bank   account   and   to  invest   the   same   in   fix   deposit.   It   is   contended   by   the  petitioner that such conditions were fulfilled by them.

36. Before   the   appellate   authority   petitioners   have  contended that;

Page 30 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT

(A)  Proceedings   under   SAFEMA   cannot   survive,  since   detention   order   was   revoked   on   21.03.1977   i.e.  before the expiry of period of detention submitting that  when detention itself was revoked, no proceedings under  the   SAFEMA   can   be   initiated.   For   such   contention,  petitioner is relying upon following decision;

        [1]       Ibrahim   Bachu   vs.   State   of   Gujarat 
        reported in AIR 1985 SC 697
        [2]       ND  Choksi vs. Union of India reported in  
        1992 (2) GLR 891
        [3]       Unreported   Judgment   of   Bombay   High  

Court dated 23.02.1981 in Criminal Application   No.1320 of 1975 [4] GK Goswami vs. ST Pillai  [5] Dhanika   vs.   The   Competent   Authority   reported in 233 ITR 26 (B)  There   was   considerable   lapse   of   time  between   notice   upon   Usmangani,   which   is   dated  04.12.1976 and order of forfeiture is dated 17.02.2000  i.e. 24 years. Because by lapse of time, it was impossible  for   the   petitioner   to   establish   that   Usmangani   has  acquired   funds   for   constructing   the   building   and   that  such fund was not illegal fund.  

Page 31 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT

[C] There   is   no   nexus   between   activities   of  detenu   and   the   acquired   property   and   no   link   was  established between detenu and the property except that  property is hold by the father of the detenu and that at  the time of construction of building in the year 1986 by  the father of the detenu, the detenu was only 20 years of  age and, therefore, when he was not having any earning  or other activity, it cannot be said that illegal funds of the  detenu   was   used   by   his   father   for   constructing   the  building.

37. Appellate tribunal has rejected the appeal by the  impugned order dated 20.03.2001.

38. Therefore,   petitioner   has   challenged   such  impugned   order   substantially   that   once   the   order   of  detention   is   revoked   by   the   detaining   authority,   no  proceedings can be continued against the relatives of the  detenu   under   the   SAFEMA   because   the   provisions   of  SAFEMA   presuppose   the   validity   of   order   of   detention  against the detenu.  

39. In addition to above ground against impugned  order   under   SAFEMA,   petitioner   No.1   being   original  detenu   has,   since   order   of   his   detention   has   been  revoked,   amended   the   petition   by   challenging   the  validity   of   such   detention   order   dated   22.12.1975   on  following grounds;

Page 32 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT

(A)  Before executing order of detention, ground  of detention needs to the formulated and signed by the  Competent   Authority.   Whereas   while   detaining   the  petitioner   as   per   Annexure   `A',   the   grounds   have   not  been formulated at all and therefore, by and large order  is patently bad and illegal.

(B)  The   grounds   for   detention   have   to   be  communicated   as   per   Constitutional   obligations   under  Article 22(5), however, it was not communicated to the  detenu  and,  therefore,   also  detention  order   is  bad and  illegal.

(C)  That   there   was   no   compliance   of   Section  12(A) of COFEPOSA even after emergency was lifted. 

(D)  That by his letter dated 15.09.1983, detenu  has demanded relevant documents from the government  like   order   of   detention   and   confirmation   of   such  detention   so   also   order   to   release   the   petitioner   from  detention was provided by letter dated 14.12.1983, but  the   Government   could   not   provide   the   grounds   of  detention which is violative of Article 22(5).

40. Perusal   of   impugned   order   dated   22.12.1995  makes it clear that it is an order of detention simplicitor  without   disclosing   the   fact   that   whether   grounds   for  Page 33 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT detention   have   been   formulated   and   signed   by   the  Competent   Authority   and   that   whether   it   was   served  upon the detenu.  Even there is no clarity that how such  order   has   been   served   upon   the   detenu   and  how  such  fact was disclosed to the near relatives of the detenu.  

41. On the contrary, what is stated in such order  is quite clear that with a view to effectively deal with  the emergency it was necessary to detain such detenu  in exercise of powers confirmed under section 3(1) of  the COFEPOSA, 1974 and thereby detenu be detained  and lodged in Nasik road central prison. i.e. there is  no ground or reason disclosed in the detention order  itself   that   for   which   illegal   activity   or   offence  petitioner   has   been   detained   under   the   COFEPOSA  when order simply reads that "petitioner is detained  with a view to effectively deal with the emergency." 

42. It is undisputed fact that thereafter emergency  has been declared as improper and unconstitutional and  it   was   lifted   with   immediate   effect   which   results   into  effect that any order passed by any such authority solely  for the purpose of emergency then all such orders held as  illegal and without jurisdiction.  Therefore, in the present  case, if order of detention of the petitioner is based solely  to  effectively   deal   with  the   emergency,   then   it   is  clear  and   certain   that   after   revocation   of   order   of   detention  suo   motu   by   the   government   itself,   on   lifting   of  Page 34 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT emergency, all other orders which were passed pursuant  to emergency shall be treated as not only improper and  illegal but null and void. 

43. The   revocation   order   dated   21.03.1977  specifically confirms that the State Government revokes  the   order   of   detention   on   its   own   and,   therefore,   in  between   two   years   there   is   no   disclosure   that   why  petitioner was detained.

44. However,   unfortunately   when   father   of   the  detenu has challenged the constitutional validity of the  COFEPOSA   and   SAFEMA   in   Special   Civil   Application  No.1788 of 1978 and when such petition was disposed of  pursuant   to   the   decision   in   the   case   of  Amraltlal  Pranjivan (supra) in 1994, i.e. after more than 15 years  and   all   of   a   sudden,   respondents   have   issued   another  notice on 17.02.2000 i.e. after more than 24 hours of the  original detention and even after 6 years from the order  in Special Civil Application No.1788 of 1978 contending  that   the   property   namely;  `Roshan   Manzil'  has   been  constructed by illegal funds. Though petitioner and there  ancestor   Usmangani   has   explained   the   availability   of  funds at his end by way of loan from different sources.  However,   the   show   cause   notice   dated   17.02.2000  specifically   disclosed   that   unexplained   amount   is   not  more   than   Rs.77,501/­   for   the   property   worth   Rs.5,  47,000/­ and thereby the unexplained amount was less  Page 35 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT then 15%. The notice more or less explained the amount  in   details   and   orders   by   the   income   tax   department  which   does   not   confirm   that   any   amount   is   illegally  acquired either by the detenu or by his relatives because  it   is   only   with   reference   to   improper   disclosure   of  accounting   by   different   tax   payers   to   the   Income   tax  department but when such tax payers are relatives of the  detenu,   the   Competent   Authority   has   clubbed   all   such  information so as to initiate SAFEMA proceedings against  them. 

45. It is undisputed fact that as already admitted by  the   Competent   Authority   in   such   notice   dated  17.02.2000 that  "order of revocation of the detention  of   Shri   Nazir   Ahmed   dated   21.03.1977   was   made  pursuant   to   lifting   of   emergency   on   the   same   date  and   was   not   conscious   revocation".   Therefore   it   is  contended that revocation of the detention order would  not   be   impediment   to   the   proceedings   under   the  SAFEMA. This is surprising stand taken by the Competent  Authority, in as much as, now it is clear that there is no  reason whatsoever assigned at the time of detaining the  petitioner when it is simply stated that detention was to  effectively dealing with the emergency and the order of  revocation   was   pursuant   to   the   lifting   of   emergency.  Therefore, now it is clear fact on record that detention of  the petitioner was solely because of emergency and not  for any other reason or ground and, therefore, there is no  Page 36 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT question of initiating further proceedings under SAFEMA  that too after couple of decades. However, the appellate  authority has failed to appreciate such factual and legal  issues   by   dismissing   the   appeal   as   per   the   impugned  order   dated   20.03.2001.     It   seems   that   tribunal   has  misconceived   itself   while   considering   Usmangani   as   a  person   within   the   meaning   under   2(2)(b)   of   the  SAFEMA.     In   view   of   revocation   of   order   of   detention  pursuant   to   lifting   of   emergency   when   such   later   part  was admitted by the appellate authority, it seems that the  appellate   authority   has   also   failed   to   appreciate   that  when order of detention of co­detenu has been quashed  by the High Court, there is no reason for the respondent  to take the shelter of such order of detention, which was  already revoked.  The tribunal has also tried to scrutinize  the   accounting   part   half   heartedly   and   observed   that  detenu and his relatives have failed in establishing that  properties   mentioned   in   the   show   cause   notice   under  Section   6   and   which   are   held   by   the   relatives   of   the  family are not illegally acquired property of the convict /  detenu.   

46. The respondent No.1 has filed affidavit in reply  as  back   as  in  August   2001.  The  sum  and  substance  of  such reply so as to object the granting of any relief as  prayed for by the petitioner is summarized as under:­ [1] In   para   2,   brief   facts   of   the   case   are  Page 37 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT reproduced which is already taken care of in foregoing  paragraphs   and   therefore   does   not   require   any  reproduction,   except   confirming   that   being   a   statutory  authority   having   all   the   relevant   papers   at   their  command, the factual details are disclosed, probably in  perfect   manner   so   as   to   make   a   show   that   impugned  orders are proper and legal. However, the legality of the  order is to be determined by the Court since it is under  challenge   before   the   Court.   And  therefore,   except   bare  factual details, the rest of the observation or comments  cannot   be   relied   upon   as   it   is,   only   because   it   is   so  disclosed   by   the   person   in   authority.   Whereas   the   fact  remains that the detention order does not disclose any  reason   or   purpose   for   detention   when   it   simply   states  that petitioner is detained with a view to effectively deal  with   the   emergency   and   thereafter   his   detention   has  been revoked by the Government. However, in between  the   Competent   Authority.   under   SAFEMA   has   initiated  proceedings   under   SAFEMA   which   has   resulted   into  present state of litigations. So far as history of proceeding  between the parties are concerned, it is already on record  and does not require repetition or reproduction.

[2] It   is   contented   that   the   property   namely  'Roshan Manzil' was acquired by the deceased father of  the   detenu   from   the   illegally   acquired   money   of   the  detenu. However, respondents have failed to realize that  when such property was acquired by the deceased father  Page 38 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT of the detenu, the detenu was a young man of 20 years  only, having no earning activities at all  and thereby least  scope of having illegally acquired money by him. For the  period   of   detention,   respondents   are   relying   upon   the  period   during   which   the   proclamation   of   emergency  remains   in   operation   when   it   is   pleaded   that   the  maximum   period   of   detention   will   depend   upon   the  lifting of emergency, further contending that the order of  detention was not made before the lifting of emergency.  However, this is a false statement on oath. In fact, it is  half truth in as much as the order of detention was made  only with a view to effectively deal with the emergency  on   22nd  December   1975   where   as   on   21st  March   1977  such order was revoked.

[3] It is contended that revocation  order issued  under   Section   11   of   SAFEMA   is   not   covered   by   any  contingencies provided under the provisions of Section 2  (2) (b) of the SAFEMA.

[4] The   discussion   in   show   cause   notice  regarding  accounts  has  been  reproduced   which  will  be  dealt with while discussing such details and determining  such   issue,   just   to   avoid   repetition   and   duplication   of  disclosing same facts.

[5] It   is   contended   that   detenu   and   petitioner   has  failed   to   discharge   his   burden   cast   upon   them   under  Page 39 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT Section 8 of the SAFEMA though sufficient opportunity  was   given.   Without   disclosing   the   factual   details   or  evidence   regarding   nexus   between   the   detenu   and   the  forfeited   properties,   it   is   also   contended   that   there   is  nexus between them. It is submitted as presumption and  that too without evidence, smuggling activity was at peak  during this period and youth were engaging themselves  in smuggling activities.

47. In addition to above referred defense on merits,  it   is   also   contended   by   respondents,   first   admitted   on  record   that   they  received  a  notice   dated  3rd  May  2001  under Section 190 of the Daman and Diu Municipalities  (Amendment)   Regulations,   1999   issued   by   the   Chief  Officer   of   Daman   and   Municipal   Council,   Daman   and  addressed   to   the   detenu   endorsing   a   copy   to   the  respondents'   office   whereby   it   was   revealed   that   the  property namely  'Roshan Manzil'  was inspected by the  Office   of   the   Daman   Municipal   Council,   Daman   and   it  was   found   in   ruin   condition.   Therefore,   the  owner/occupants of the said property were required to  pull down or to secure or repair damages within 15 days.  Therefore,   though   several   actions   were   suggested,  respondents   have   wisely   prayed     for   prohibitory   order  against occupants of such premises to stay there and to  take vacant physical possession of the property by him.

48. With such reply, respondents have annexed copy  Page 40 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT of Special Civil Application No. 1788 of 1978, perusal of  which   makes   it   clear   that   the   petition   was   mainly  challenging the Constitutional validity of the Constitution  (14th  Amendment)   Act,   1976,   so   also   placing   the  SAFEMA in 9th  Schedule of the Constitution; with some  ancillaries reliefs including prohibitory order against the  respondents in proceeding further. 

49. The record shows that this matter was initially  decided   by   judgment   and   order   dated   16th  April   2004  and by such judgment the co­ordinate bench of this High  Court has allowed the petition in following terms:­ "46.   For   the   foregoing   reasons,   this   petition   is   allowed:­ 46.1)  The   order   of   detention   of   the   first   petitioner dated 22/12/1975 passed   by respondent   No.3   and   4   herein   u/S.3   of   the   Conservation   of   Foreign   Exchange   and   Prevention   of   Smuggling   Activities Act, 1974 is quashed and set aside.

46.2)  The   proceedings   u/S.6(1)   of   The   Smugglers   and   Foreign   Exchange   Manipulators   (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 initiated against   the petitioners, based on an order of detention dated   22/12/1975   and   the   consequential   order   dated   17/02/2000   passed   by   the   Competent   Authority   u/S.7   of   the   Smugglers   and   Foreign   Exchange  Manipulators   (Forfeiture   of   Property)   Act,   1976   forfeiting the property known as 'Roshan Manzil' is   also quashed and set aside.

50. However, such judgment was challenged by the  Page 41 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT respondents   in   LPA   No.127   of   2005   wherein   by  Consolidated judgment and order dated 18th  July 2014  with LPA No. 124 and 129 of 2005 on 18th July 2014, the  division bench of this Court has quashed and set aside  such judgment dated 16th April 2004 and remanded back  the   matter.   Full   details   of   such   judgment   is   already  explained hereinabove while recording the factual details  of Special Civil Application No.6143 of 1999.

51. Whereas the petitioners have filed an additional  affidavit in the month of April 2015 to bring on record  certain facts which are as under:­ (A) The property namely  'Roshan Manzil'  which  is   the   subject   matter   of   the   petition   is   no   more   in  existence   and  'Roshan   Manzil'  has   been   demolished  under the orders of this Court as well as the orders of the  Daman   Municipal   Council,   Daman   which   is   out   of   the  knowledge of the respondents,the Competent Authority  under SAFEMA and that it was done with their approval  only.

52. Since the property is no more in existence, the  petition has become infructuous and request the Court to  pass necessary orders in the interest of justice.

53. As a new building has already been constructed  after   getting   the   plan   sanctioned   by   the   Daman  Page 42 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT Municipal Council and it is sold out to various persons.  The tenants of the 'Roshan Manzil' had tried to obstruct  the   demolition   of  'Roshan   Manzil'  before   the   learned  Civil Court with an application for temporary injunction.  However, they could not succeed.

54. Unfortunately,   even   after   such   disclosure   on  oath on record, both the parties have argued the matter  and submitted written submission also and therefore the  Court has no option but to deal with such factual details  in detail as recorded herein above. 

55. In   support   of   their   stand,   petitioner   has   filed  further affidavit dated 25.4.2018 inter alia disclosing on  oath that 'Roshan Manzil' has been demolished by virtue  of   the   orders   passed   by   the   Municipality   with   the  concurrence   of   SAFEMA   authorities   since   it   was   in  dilapidated   condition   and   that   through   mistake,   it   has  been   mentioned   that   since   the   property   has   been  demolished,   the   Write   Petition   has  become   infructuous  making   a   precise   statement   that   what   was   meant   was  that   the   order  of   forfeiture   no more   survives  since   the  property   does   not   survive   and   that   should   be   read   as  corrected as such. It is further stated that since ground of  detention   has   not   been   formulated   then   the   detention  order itself shall be vitiated and it will be a void order.  Therefore, no SAFEMA proceeding can be based on that  and   demolition   of   the  `Roshan   Manzil'  has   become  Page 43 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT academic. 

56. In support of all such submissions, petitioner is  relying upon the decision in the case of  N.D. Choksi v.  Competent   Authority   reported   in   1992(2)   GLR   891   wherein   relying  upon  the  decision   of  Hon'ble   Supreme  Court of India, in the case of  Krishna Murari reported   in AIR 1975 SC 1877, it was held that it is mandatory to  formulate the grounds and if the same is not done, the  order   of   detention   will   be   vitiated   and   SAFEMA  proceeding   cannot   be   passed   on   such   ground   of  detention. It is also submitted that similar view is taken  by Division Bench in Special Civil Application No.331 of  1992 in judgment dated 12.4.1992 that if the grounds of  detention are not formulated, the detention order will be  vitiated   and   SAFEMA   proceedings   cannot   be   initiated.  Similar   view   is   also   taken   in   the   decision   between  Aayeshaben   Nur   Mohamaad   v.   Competent   Authority   reported in 2004(2) GLR 1431.

57. It is also submitted that pursuant to the decision  in the case of  Karima Bagad reported in 1998(6) SCC   264, the valid order of detention is a condition precedent  for   even   initiating   the   SAFEMA   proceeding   and,  therefore,   when   detention   order   is   vitiated,   SAFEMA  proceedings cannot lie. 

Page 44 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT

58. It   is   undisputed   fact   that   now   pursuant   to  today's   judgment   and   decision   in   Special   Civil  Application No.6143 of 1999 when order of detention of  Nazir   Ahmed   Usmangani   Digmar   is   quashed   and   set  aside,   the   SAFEMA   proceeding   against   his   relatives  would  not  survive.   It  would  be   appropriate   to  make  it  clear that submission and citations recorded hereinabove  are   applicable   while   deciding   the   Special   Civil  Application No.6143 of 1999 and, therefore, it should be  read accordingly. 

59. In   addition   to   what   is   discussed   hereinabove,  reference  to   the   case   of  Domnic   Alex   Fernandes   v.  Union   of   India   reported   in   2017(9)   SCC   489  is  relevant   just   to   show   that   the   contention   of   the  respondent that there is no option but to forfeit all the  properties   once   notice   under   SAFEMA   is   issued   is   not  correct, inasmuch as, now it is held that the right of a  bonafide   tenant   in   a   property   will   not   stand  automatically terminated by forfeiture of such property  and   vesting   thereof   in   the   Central   Government.   While  holding so, in such recent judgment dated 17.8.2017, the  Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   has   already   considered   the  observation   of   para   44   of   Attorney   General   of   India  (Supra)  so also the cases between Fatima  Mohd. Amin  v. Union  of  India  reported  in  2003(7)  SCC  436,  P.P.  Abdulla  v.  Competent  Authority  reported  in  2007(2)  SCC   510   and   Aslam   Mohammad   Merchant   v. 

Page 45 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT

Competent Authority reported in 2008(14) SCC 186 . 

60. It is undisputed fact that property in question is  hold by the tenants who have already preferred separate  petition being Special Civil Application No.3732 of 2002,  details of which are discussed herein below.

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3732 OF 2002

61. This   petition   is   preferred   by  'Roshan   Manzil  Tenants Association' through it's President. However, it  is to be recollected here, as recorded while recording the  factual details with reference to Special Civil Application  No.4348 of 2001 that such 'Roshan Manzil' building has  already been demolished and new building at that place  has   already   been   constructed   and   it   is   sold   out   to  different owners and therefore petitioner of such Special  Civil   Application   No.4348   of   2001   has   disclosed   that  petition   has   become   infructuous.   In   view   of   such  disclosure,   even   this   petition   would   also   become  infructuous. However, both the sides have argued such  matters and called for the final determination and hence  this exercise.

62. The   petitioner   is   an   association   of   tenants   of  'Roshan Manzil' wherein few tenants are having tenancy  rights   of   shops   whereas   few   members   are   residing   in  residential part of the same building as tenants. The list  Page 46 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT of tenants is attached with the petition as Annexure A.  Such tenants were holding the property for more than 30  years   at   the   time   of   filing   the   petition   that   is   prior   to  coming into force of the SAFEMA. They are paying rent  regularly to such landlord and no proceedings of eviction  are   pending   against   them.   After   landlord   fails   to   pay  several dues to the Income Tax Department, the Income  Tax Department was collecting rent from them.

63. Pending   litigation   between   the  detenu   and  his  relatives with the Competent Authority, it seems that one  Civil Application No.11380 of 2001 has been preferred in  Special   Civil   Application   No.4348   of   2001   by   the  Competent Authority seeking permission of the Court to  allow   them   to   evict   the   tenants   from   the   premises   in  question and to demolish the building namely  'Roshan  Manzil'.

64. However, on 19th  October 2001, the Court has  granted   limited   relief   permitting   the   Competent  Authority   to   take   action   including   eviction   against   the  tenants in accordance with law with observation that if  Competent Authority spends any amount for preservation  or demolition of the property, if required, the same will  be   subject   to   the   outcome   of   the   main   Special   Civil  Application.   Based   upon   such   interim   relief   the  Competent   Authority   has   issued   notice   for   eviction,  Therefore,   the   tenant   association   has   no   option   but   to  Page 47 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT prefer   this   petition   by   challenging   the   eviction   notice  dated 18th  February 2002, copy of which is produced at  Annexure 'AA'. Such notice was addressed to as many as  26   occupants   who   are   before   this   Court   through   their  association   as   petitioner   in   the   present   petition.   The  petitioner   has   also   sought   declaration   that   order   of  forfeiture in SAFEMA is also illegal, with ancillary relief  as   well   as   interim   relief   to   set   aside   the   operation   of  eviction notice and order dated 18th February 2002.

65. Based   upon   above   referred   factual   details   and  legal   grounds,   the   petitioner   has   also   taken   following  stand while challenging the impugned notice:­ [A] It   is   contended   that   order   of   Special   Civil  Application No.11380 of 2001 is the result of collusion  between the landlord and Competent Authority so that  they   may   get   possession   of   the   properties   and   thereby  when landlord succeeds in his petition, he gets back the  possession   without   following   the   due   process   of   law  under the Rent Act.  However,  there is no substance in  such submission in as much as the further development  in   the   matter   whereby   the   new   construction   has   been  carried out by demolishing the old premises and selling it  to several persons makes such allegations baseless.

[B] However,   it   is   contended   that   in   any   case  such activity cannot be permitted by the Court because  Page 48 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT Court   has   permitted   the   respondents   to   take   steps   in  accordance   with   law   and   not   in   illegal   and   improper  manner.

[C] Even if property is forfeited under Section 7,  the   Government   has   to   take   the   properties   subject   to  tenancy   of   the   members   of   the   petitioner's   association  and that it is mandatory to issue a notice to the person  who is affected by such order both under Section 6(2)  and 7 and that since it is admitted position that members  of   the   petitioners'   association   are   holding   the   property  from   whom   possession   has   been   taken   then   they   are  required to be heard without fail and that too after giving  30  days  notice.  The  tenancy  was  prior  to  the  SAFEMA  coming into force. Therefore, no eviction can be ordered  of   such   tenant   without   following   due   and   lawful  procedure   which   may   be   under   appropriate   statutory  provisions or under the Civil Law that is Rent Act. Such  notice were never issued and lawful procedure has never  been   followed.   Order   of   detention   had   already   been  revoked   and   therefore   SAFEMA   proceedings   cannot   be  continued and thereby possession cannot be taken from  the petitioner. 

66. The sum and substance of petitioner's case and  reasons for allowing petitions are summarized as under:­ [A] The   members   of   the   petitioner   association  Page 49 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT being   tenants   who   are   affected   by   the   orders   of   the  Competent Authority as well as by this high Court have  not been heard before passing any such order or giving  direction to take away their possession.

[B] The   petitioner   association   remained  thoroughly unrepresented which results in making them  homeless   and   business­less   though   they   are   occupying  the   premises   for   more   than   30   years   even   without  offering  a   reasonable   opportunity   to  them  and  thereby  practically   even   without   verifying   before   passing   the  order   of   forfeiture   that   where   property   is   held   by   the  person against whom such order of forfeiture is passed.

[C] Since members of the petitioner are affected,  they are required to be heard before passing impugned  orders.

[D] The   impugned   notice   as   well   as   order   of  forfeiture are bad and illegal in view of the fact that as  per   provisions   of   Section   19(1)   of   the   SAFEMA,   the  Competent   Authority   requires   30   days   notice   whereas  impugned notice was given with a direction to evict the  premises in 15 days. It is specifically averted that in the  event the forfeiture order stands valid, then the members  of   the   association   may   be   continued   as   the   tenants   of  Union   of   India   on   such   terms   and   conditions   as   are  applicable to them under the conditions of the tenancy. 

Page 50 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT

[E] The Court has never directed the Competent  Authority to take away the possession but has merely and  clearly   stated   that   if   it   is   permissible   under   law   by  following   lawful   process   possession   may   be   taken.  Therefore,   before   taking   possession   the   notices   are  required to be issued under Section 19(1) of the SAFEMA  which is not done. Therefore, the whole notice is illegal.

[F] The   factual   details   of   the   detention   of   the  landlord   and   proceeding   against   him   are   already  disclosed   in   previous   petition   and   therefore   it's  reproduction is avoided. 

[G] Proceedings   under   SAFEMA   cannot   survive,  since   detention   order   was   revoked   on   21.03.1977   i.e.  before   the   expiry   of   period   of   detention   that   when  detention itself was revoked, no proceedings under the  SAFEMA   can   be   initiated   relying   upon   following  decision;

        [1]       Ibrahim   Bachu   vs.   State   of   Gujarat 
        reported in AIR 1985 SC 697
        [2]       ND  Choksi vs. Union of India reported in  
        1992 (2) GLR 891
        [3]       Unreported   Judgment   of   Bombay   High  

Court dated 23.02.1981 in Criminal Application   Page 51 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT No.1320 of 1975 [4] GK Goswami vs. ST Pillai  [5] Dhanika   vs.   The   Competent   Authority   reported in 233 ITR 26 [H]  There   was   considerable   lapse   of   time  between   notice   upon   Usmangani,   which   is   dated  04.12.1976 and order of forfeiture is dated 17.02.2000  i.e. 24 years. Because by lapse of time, it was impossible  for   the   petitioner   to   establish   that   Usmangani   has  acquired   funds   for   constructing   the   building   and   that  such fund was not illegal fund.  

[I] There   is   no   nexus   between   activities   of  detenu   and   the   acquired   property   and   no   link   was  established between detenu and the property except that  property is hold by the father of the detenu and that at  the time of construction of building in the year 1986 by  the father of the detenu, the detenu was only 20 years of  age and, therefore, when he was not having any earning  or other activity, it cannot be said that illegal funds of the  detenu   was   used   by   his   father   for   constructing   the  building.

67. In view of above facts and circumstances, when  property   namely;  `Roshan   Manzil'   was   occupied   by  petitioners of Special Civil Application No.3732 of 2002  considering   the   recent   judgment   of   Hon'ble   Supreme  Page 52 of 53 C/SCA/6143/1999 CAV JUDGMENT Court of India, SAFEMA proceedings would not disturb  their rights and pursuant to quashing the detention order  of  Nazir   Ahmed   Usmangani   Digmar,   even   SAFEMA  against his relatives would not survive. Therefore, these  petitions are allowed as prayed for. 

       Sd/­                                         (S.G. SHAH, J.) VATSAL S. KOTECHA Page 53 of 53