Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Chawda Builders (Partnershiop ... vs Union Of India Department Of Revenue ... on 12 September, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 12 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 10629 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
M/S CHAWDA BUILDERS (PARTNERSHIOP FIRM)
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED PARTNER HAVANSINGH
CHAWDA S/O SHRI RAM SINGH CHAWDA, AGED ABOUT
48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS OFFICE NO. 201,
PLOT NO. 139, SHYAM NAGAR, SCHEME NO. 152 MR-10
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY RAHUL SETHI- ADVOCATE)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
MINISTRY OF FINANCE THROUGH THE
SECRETARY SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI (DELHI)
2. THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE THROUGH
THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT
D I R E C T O R AT E PALIKA PLAZA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU JOSHI-ADVOCATE)
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking direction to the respondents to correct or rectify the communication dated 28.08.2018 (Annexure P/5) in which the land belonging to the petitioner has wrongly been mentioned.
2. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of colony 2 development. The petitioner is owner of land bearing survey No.94/3/2 and 94/1/2/2 of Village Bada Bangarda, Tehsil Malharganj by virtue of registered sale deed dated 03.05.2019 executed by the previous owner Dhannalal and Radheshyam. The petitioner is developing colony in the name of ' Sky City-4' on the aforesaid land and other adjoining land belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an application to get clearance from the RERA in the year 2020. An objection came before the RERA that the aforesaid land has been attached by the respondent No.2 under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). Thereafter petitioner made an enquiry at Tehsil Office regarding the aforesaid information and found that the proceeding against Zoom Realty were initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 by respondent No.2 and various properties belonging to Zoom Realty situated in Village Bada Bangarda and Village Budhaniya were attached on 28.07.2015 and vide letter dated 28.08.2018, the information was given to the Tehsildar that not to change any entry in the form P-2 register in order to avoid alienation. According to the petitioner the land survey No.94 area 3.290 is situated at Palkhedi belongs to Zoom Realty and survey No.94 area 0.267 situated at Village Bada Bangarda does not belong to Zoom Reality, hence, letter dated 28.08.2018 is liable to be corrected.
3. The petitioner approached the Sub Divisional Officer under Section 115 of MPLRC. On 17.06.2021, the order has been passed for deletion of the name of respondent No.2 from Column No.12 based on the report given by Naib Tehsildar, Malharganj. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation to the respondents seeking correction in the letter dated 28.08.2018. The respondent No.2 wrote letter to Deputy Secretary,RERA, Bhopal that 3 Enforcement Directorate Indore has issued a provisional attachment order dated 02.02.2021 whereby certain properties of M/s Zoom Realty Projects Private Limited located at Village Palakhedi have been attached. The order dated 28.07.2015 has subsequently been affirmed by Adjudicating Authority on 14.12.2015, hence, petitioner approached before this Court by way of present Writ Petition.
4. The respondent have filed reply by submitting that the proceedings related to attachment of the property had attained finality, thereafter, the Adjudicating Authority, Prevention of Money Laundering, New Delhi vide order dated 14.12.2015 had affirmed the order, now appeal is pending before the Appellate Tribunal, Prevention of Money Laundering. The petitioner is also having remedy of appeal under Section 26 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to approach the Appellate Tribunal to get the order modified. Once the property has been attached and confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority, the respondents cannot change the same and now only Appellate Authority can pass an order for release of the land of the petitioner.
5. The respondent filed a list of document on 04.09.2023 alongwith a letter dated 29.10.2020 written by the Nail Tehsildar to the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate to the effect that as per Patwari report and Khasra, it is proved that the land survey No.94 area 3.290 of Village Palakhedi ought to have been attached but land survey No.94 area 0.267 situated at Village Bada Bangarda has been mentioned.
6. Shri Joshi, Deputy Solicitor General fairly submits that mistakenly the land of the petitioner of survey No.94 area 0.267 situated at Village Bada Bangarda has been included in the letter dated 28.08.2018 but the respondent cannot change the same because the said attachment is now affirmed.
47. If it is mistake on part of Enforcement Directorate, then Enforcement Directorate should file an application to get released the property of survey No.94 area 0.267 in pending appeal, instead of relegating the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority.
8. Therefore, petition is disposed off with direction to the respondent No.2 to file an appropriate application before the Appellate Authority, PMLA to seek appropriate order for release of land No.94 area 0.267 situated at Village Bada Bangarda.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Praveen Digitally signed by PRAVEEN Date: 2023.09.15 17:15:07 +05'30'