/2023 INSC 0202/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
       CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4369 OF 2009
M/S. PLATINUM THEATRE AND OTHERS ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
COMPETENT AUTHORITY SMUGGLERS &
FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANIPULATORS
(FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY) ACT, 1976
AND ANOTHER ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order
dated   19 th
  April,   2007   passed   by   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore upholding the order passed by the
competent   authority   under   Section   7   read   with   19(1)   of   the
Smugglers   and   Foreign   Exchange   Manipulators(Forfeiture   of
1

Property) Act, 1976(hereinafter being referred to as the “Act, 1976”)
dated 31 st
 December, 1997.
2. Appellant   no.1   is   said   to   be   a   registered   partnership   firm
comprising of appellant nos. 2 to 5 and one N.A. Yusuf(not a party
herein)  as  its  partners  with   the  profit   sharing  ratio   of  the  partners
as follows:­
N.A. Yusuf ­ 50%
P.M. Saheeda(appellant no. 2) ­ 25%
Mohd. Ali(appellant no. 3) ­ 8.33%
Shaukat Ali(appellant no. 4) ­ 8.33%
Mumtaz(appellant no. 5) ­ 8.33%
3. The background facts culled out from the record which led to
passing   of   the   order   forfeiting   the   subject   property   are   that   one   of
the partners of the first appellant, namely, N.A. Yusuf, was ordered
to be detained by Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention
of   Smuggling   Activities   Act,   1974(hereinafter   being   referred   to   as
“COFEPOSA”) by order dated 21 st
  January, 1985 by Government of
Maharashtra   and   later   by   the   Central   Government   by   order   dated
27 th
  August,   1991.     The   two   detention   orders   against   N.A.   Yusuf
2

came to be challenged in the writ petition before Delhi High Court.
Both   the   petitions   were   allowed   by   judgments   dated   15 th
  October,
1991 and 11 th
  May, 1992 respectively.   In consequence thereof, the
forfeiture   order   passed   by   the   competent   authority   on   23 rd
November, 1977 came to an end.
4. On 16 th
  October, 1994, a show cause notice was issued to the
first appellant firm and its partners calling upon them to provide an
explanation   as   to   why   the   subject   theatre   (M/s.   Platinum   Theatre)
should not be forfeited.   After  affording  opportunity of hearing, the
competent   authority,   in   the   first   instance,   passed   an   order   of
forfeiture   against   the   first   appellant   firm   forfeiting   M/s.   Platinum
Theatre   and   its   equipment   by   order   dated   31 st
  July,   1995.
However,   on   appeal   being   preferred   at   the   instance   of   the
appellants,   the   matter   was   remanded   back   to   the   competent
authority for fresh consideration by order dated 17 th
 July, 1997.
5. The competent authority after revisiting the matter afresh and
affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, passed an order
dated   31 st
  December,   1997   of   forfeiture   of   M/s.   Platinum   Theatre
under   Section   7   of   the   Act,   1976.     Subsequently,   the   Appellate
3

Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi(hereinafter being referred
to as the “Tribunal”) dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of
forfeiture   passed   by   the   competent   authority   on   7 th
  September,
1999   and,   thereafter,   the   writ   petition   filed   at   the   instance   of   the
appellants also came to be dismissed by judgment and order dated
19 th
  April,   2007   which   became   a   subject   matter   of   challenge   in
appeal before us.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the order of
forfeiture particularly on the following submissions:­
(i) The land on which the subject theatre was constructed is not
the property of the first appellant firm.  It is owned by appellant no.
2(P.M.   Saheeda   w/o   Ibrahim   Soofi)   through   a   registered   sale   deed
dated   16 th
  April,   1969.     Since   the   land   was   privately   owned   by
appellant   no.   2,   the   order   regarding   forfeiture   of   land,   in   the   facts
and circumstance of the case, is not legally sustainable.
(ii) The   competent   authority   ought   to   have   applied   Section   9   of
the   Act,   1976   in   the   present   case   and   should   have   provided   an
option to the appellants to pay fine in lieu of forfeiture, taking into
consideration   the   fact   that   the   appellants   had   disclosed   source   of
4

more   than   50%   cost   incurred   in   construction   of   the   theatre.     The
loan   of   Rs.12   lakhs   obtained   from   Vijaya   Bank   by   the   appellants
constituted more than 50% of cost of the theatre’s construction.  As
such, the authority was under an obligation to give an option to the
appellants to pay a fine in lieu of forfeiture in terms of Section 9 of
the Act, 1976.
(iii) The   forfeiture   proceeding   initiated   in   1995   was   grossly
delayed.  The partnership firm is of the year 1974, the construction
of the theatre was carried out during the period 1971­1974 and the
forfeiture   order   was   passed   in   1997,   after   more   than   two   decades.
The   competent   authority   ought   to   have   considered   the   inordinate
delay   in   passing   of   an   adverse   order   of   forfeiture   on   the   premise
that it could not have been possible because of long  delay  to  trace
the relevant documents which, indeed, has caused prejudice to the
appellants.
7. Per   contra,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondents,   while
supporting the finding returned by the competent authority, in the
first   instance,   forfeiting   the   subject   property   in   question   and   later
5

confirmed   by   the   Tribunal   in   the   impugned   judgment,   in   counter,
has made the following submissions:­
(i) Section 8 of the Act, 1976 provides that the burden to proof, in
any   proceedings   under   this   Act,   shall   lie   on   the   person   affected.
The   appellants   have   failed   to   discharge   the   said   burden,   in
consequence   of   which   the   finding   recorded   by   the   competent
authority   duly   supported   with   the   material   on   record   justify   and
support   the   order   of   forfeiture   passed   by   the   competent   authority
dated 31 st
 December, 1997.
(ii) Both   N.A.   Yusuf   and   appellant   no.   2(P.M.Saheeda)   failed   to
disclose   any   source   of   their   capital   contribution   in   the   first
appellant firm and have failed to disclose any books of accounts for
the   expenditure   in   construction   of   the   subject   theatre   and   also
failed   to   disclose   any   bank   account   from   which   money   was
disbursed   for   building   the   said   theatre.     In   addition,   appellant   no.
2(P.M. Saheeda) failed to substantiate with proof the claim that the
land  was bought from  her  wedding  gifts in 1969.   In the facts and
circumstances,   the   finding   of   forfeiture   recorded   by   the   competent
6

authority has been rightly confirmed at all later stages in the course
of proceedings.
(iii) The contribution of N.A. Yusuf was more than half of the total
contribution of Rs.10.20 lakhs of capital infused in the partnership
firm.  Since more than 50% of the value remained unexplained, the
appellants were not entitled to seek an option to pay a fine in lieu of
forfeiture as contemplated under Section 9 of the Act.
(iv) There was no delay which could be attributed to the authority
for   the   reason   that   proceedings   were   initiated   in   the   first   instance
against   the   appellant   firm   by   issuance   of   show   cause   notice   dated
13 th
  January, 1977 and since then the proceedings were continued
one   after   the   other.     In   reference   to   the   instant   proceedings,   the
show   cause   notice   was   served   to   the   appellant   firm   and   its
partners(appellant nos. 2 to 5)  on  16 th
  October, 1994 which  finally
culminated into forfeiture of the property under Section 7 by order
dated 31 st
  December, 1997.   In the given circumstances, there was
no delay  on the  part of  the  respondent  authorities in  initiating  the
proceedings in reference to the forfeiture of the property under the
7

Act, 1976 which, in no manner, be said to be fatal in the given facts
and circumstances to interfere in the instant proceedings.
8. We  have  heard   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and  with   their
assistance perused the material available on record.
9. The   Act,   1976   has   been   enacted   by   the   Parliament   with   an
object to provide for the forfeiture of illegally acquired properties of
smugglers   and   foreign   exchange   manipulators   and   for   matters
connected   therewith   or   incidental   thereto.     At   the   same   time,   to
provide   an   effective   prevention   of   smuggling   activities   and   foreign
exchange   manipulations   which   are   having   a   deleterious   effect   on
the national economy, it is necessary to deprive persons engaged in
such   activities   and   manipulations   of   their   ill­gotten   gains.     It   also
provides   that   such   persons   have   been   augmenting   such   gains   by
violations of wealth­tax, income­tax or other laws or by other means
and have thereby been increasing their resources for operating in a
clandestine   manner   and   to   nail   such   persons   who   are   holding   the
properties   acquired   by   them   through   such   gains   in   the   name   of
their relatives, associates and confidants.
8

10. Section 2(1) of the Act, 1976 applies to the persons specified in
sub­section (2).   Section 2(2) gives a long list of different categories
of   persons   to   whom   the   Act   applies   and   includes   as   defined   in
Section   2(2)(b)   that   every   person   in   respect   of   whom   an   order   of
detention   has   been   made   under   the   COFEPOSA   and   also   includes
every associate of a person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) as
defined in sub­clause(d) read with Explanation 3, which refers to an
associate and covers all individuals who had been or is a member,
partner   or   director   of   an   association   of   persons   including
association, body, partnership firm or private company, etc.   
11. Sections   2,   6,   7,   8  and  9   of  the   Act,  1976  which   are  relevant
for the purpose, are extracted hereinbelow:
“ 2. Application.  
(1)   The   provisions   of   this   Act   shall   apply   only   to   the   persons
specified in sub­section (2). 
(2)   The   persons   referred   to   in   sub­section   (1)   are   the   following,
namely: ­ 
(a) every person­ 
(i) who has been convicted under the Sea Customs Act,
1878   (8   of   1878),   or   the   Customs   Act,   1962   (52   of
1962),   of   an   offence   in   relation   to   goods   of   a   value
exceeding one lakh of rupees ; or 
9

(ii)   who   has   been   convicted   under   the   Foreign
Exchange   Regulation   Act,   1947   (7   of   1947),   or   the
Foreign   Exchange   Regulation   Act,   1104   1973   (46   of
1973),   of   an   offence,   the   amount   or   value   involved   in
which exceeds one lakh of rupees; or 
(iii) who having been convicted under the Sea Customs
Act, 1878 (8 of 1878), or the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of
1962),   has   been   convicted   subsequently   under   either
of those Acts ; or 
(iv)   who   having   been   convicted   under   the   Foreign
Exchange   Regulation   Act,   1947   (7   of   1947),   or   the
Foreign   Exchange   Regulation   Act,   1973   (46   of   1973),
has been convicted subsequently under either of those
Acts ; 
(b) every person in respect of whom an order of detention has been
made under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention
of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974); 
Provided that­ 
(i) such order of detention, being an order to which
the   provisions   of   section   9   or   section   12A   of   the   said
Act do not apply, has not been revoked on the report of
the   Advisory   Board   under   section   8  of  the   said   Act   or
before   the   receipt   of   the   report   of   the   Advisory   Board
or before making a reference to the Advisory Board; or
 
(ii) such order of detention, being an order to which
the   provisions   of   section   9   of   the   said   Act   apply,   has
not   been   revoked   before   the   expiry   of   the   time   for,   or
on   the   basis   of,   the   review   under   subsection   (3)of
section 9, or on the report of the Advisory Board under
section 8, read with sub­ section (2) of section 9, of the
said Act ; or 
(iii) such order of detention, being an order to which,
the provisions of section 12A of the said Act apply, has
not   been   revoked   before   the   expiry   of   the   time   for,   or
on   the   basis   of,   the   first   review   under   sub­section   (3)
of   that   section,   or   on   the   basis   of   the   report   of   the
10

Advisory Board under section 8, read with sub­section
(6) of section 12A, of that Act ; or
(iv) such   order   of   detention   has   not   been   set   aside
by a court of competent jurisdiction ; 
(c)  every  person  who  is a relative  of a  person referred to in clause
(a) or clause (b) ; 
(d) every associate of a person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b);
(e)   any   holder   (hereafter   in   this   clause   referred   to   as   the   present
holder) of any property which was at any time previously held by a
person   referred   to   in   clause   (a)   or   clause   (b)   unless   the   present
holder or, as the case may be, anyone who held such property after
such  person  and  before  the present  holder,  is  or  was a  transferee
in good faith for adequate consideration.
Explanation 1.­ 
Explanation 2.­­ 
Explanation   3.­For   the   purposes   of   clause   (d),   "associate",   in
relation to a person, means­ 
(i) any individual who had been or is residing in the
residential   premises   (including   outhouses)   of   such
person;
 
(ii) any individual who had been or is managing the
affairs or keeping the accounts of such person;
 
(iii) any   association   of   persons,   body   of   individuals,
partnership   firm,   or   private   company   within   the
meaning   of   the   Companies   Act,   1956   (   1   of   1956),   of
which   such   person   had  been   or   is   a   member,   partner
or director;
 
(iv) any   individual   who   had   been   or   is   a   member,
partner   or   director   of   an   association   of   persons,   body
of   individuals,   partnership   firm   or   private   company
referred to in clause (iii) at any time when such person
had   been   or   is   a   member,   partner   or   director   of   such
association,   body,   partnership   firm   or   private
company;
11

 
(v) any   person   who   had   been   or   is   managing   the
affairs,   or   keeping   the   accounts,   of   any   association   of
persons,   body   of   individuals,   partnership   firm   or
private company referred to in clause (iii); 
(vi) ….”
….
6. Notice of forfeiture. 
(1) If, having regard to the value of the properties held
by   any   person   to   whom   this   Act   applies,   either   by
himself or through any other person on his behalf, his
known sources of income, earnings or assets, and any
other information or material available to it as a result
of   action   taken   under   section   18   or   otherwise,   the
competent authority has reason to believe (the reasons
for   such   belief   to   be   recorded   in   writting)   that   all   or
any of such properties are illegally acquired properties.
it   may   serve   a   notice   upon   such   person   (hereinafter
referred   to   as   the   person   affected)   calling   upon   him
within   such   time   as   may   be   specified   in   the   notice,
which   shall   not   be   ordinarily  less   than   thirty  days,   to
indicate the sources of his income, earnings or assets,
out   of   which   or   by   means   of   which   he   has   acquired
such   property,   the   evidence   on   which   he   relies   and
other   relevant   information   and   particulars,   and   to
show   cause   why   all   or   any   of   such   properties,   as   the
case   may   be,   should   not   be   declared   to   be   illegally
acquired   properties   and   forfeited   to   the   Central
Government under this Act. 
(2)   Where   a   notice   under   sub­section   (1)   to   any
specifies any property as being  held on behalf of such
person by any other person. a copy of the notice shall
also be served upon such other person. 
7. Forfeiture of property in certain cases.  
(1) The competent authority may, after considering the
explanation,   if   any,   to   the   show­   cause   notice   issued
under   section   6,   and   the   materials   available   before   it
12

and   after   giving   to   the   person   affected   (and   in   a   case
where the person affected holds any property specified
in the notice through any  other  person,  to such  other
person   also)   a   reasonable   opportunity   of   being   heard,
by   order,   record   a   finding   whether   all   or   any   of   the
properties in question are illegally acquired properties.
(2)   Where   the   competent   authority   is   satisfied   that
some   of   the   properties   referred   to   in   the   show   cause
notice   are   illegally   acquired   properties   but   is   not   able
to identify specifically such properties then, it shall be
lawful   for   the   competent   authority   to   specify   the
properties   which,   to   the   best   of   its   judgment,   are
illegally   acquired   properties   and   record   a   finding
accordingly under sub­section (1). 
(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. 
(4)   where   any   shares   in   a   company   stand   forfeited   to
the   Central   Government   under   this   Act,   then,   the
company shall, notwithstanding anything contained in
the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or the articles of
association   of   the   company,   forthwith   register   the
Central Government as the transferee of such shares. 
8. Burden of proof.  
In   any   proceedings   under   this   Act,   the   burden   of
proving that any property specified in the notice served
under section 6 is not illegally acquired property shall
be on the person affected. 
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
13

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 purposes of this sub­section, the
value   of   any   part   of   income,   earnings   or   assets,   with
which any 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 sub­
section   (1),   the   person   affected   shall   be   given   a
reasonable opportunity of being heard, 
(3) Where the person 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.”
12. Taking into consideration the scope and ambit of Act, 1976 of
which   a   detailed   reference   has   been   made,   forfeiture   proceedings
could   be   initiated   under   Section   6   in   reference   to   such   illegally
acquired properties by such persons who are covered under Section
2   read   with   the   explanation,   appended   thereto,   by   a   show   cause
notice and after due compliance of principles of natural justice, the
14

power vests in the competent authority to pass an order of forfeiture
of the property in exercise of power under Section 7 of the Act 1976.
13. Section   8   clearly   postulates   that   burden   of   proof,   in   any
proceedings under this Act, in reference to the notice served under
Section   6   in   regard   to   the   illegally   acquired   properties   shall   lie   on
the   person   affected   and   while   exercising   power   under   Section   7,
forfeiting the illegally acquired properties in a case where the source
of only a part, being less than one­half of the income of which such
property   is   acquired,   the   acquisition   has   been   subject   to   proof   to
the satisfaction of the competent authority, can be offered an option
to the person affected to pay in lieu of forfeiture, a fine of the value
of such part, as indicated under Section 9 of the Act 1976. 
14. The   respondents   have   initiated   the   proceedings   serving   show
cause notice under Section 6 of forfeiture of the property which was
taken   from   ill­gotten   gains   to   the   first   appellant   firm   and   its
partners(Appellant   nos.   2   to   5)   dated   16 th
  October,   1994.   The
competent   authority,   in   the   first   instance,   after   taking   into
consideration   the   material   on   record   returned   a   finding   that   the
total contribution of the partners in M/s. Platinum Theatre by way
15

of   capital   was   Rs.10,20,000/­   as   could   be   seen   from   the
Partnership Deed as well as returns of M/s. Platinum Theatre that
clearly indicates that N.A. Yusuf contributed Rs.5 lakhs.   Appellant
no.2 (P.M. Saheeda) and  her  minor  son  contributed Rs.5.20 lakhs.
The partners are the joint owners of the property of a firm by virtue
of their capital contribution in terms of Partnership Deed.
15. N.A.   Yusuf   has   not   disclosed   any   source   from   which   he   got
capital contribution of Rs.5 lakhs.   In respect of contribution made
by Appellant no. 2(P.M. Saheeda) and her minor son to the tune of
Rs. 5.20 lakhs in the partnership firm, no explanation was tendered
about   the   source   of   funds   infused   in   the   partnership   firm.   The
authorities of  the  income­tax  department  on  assessment were able
to substantiate that neither the source of contribution made by N.A.
Yusuf   nor   anyone   else   and   the   entire   sum   of   Rs.4.57   lakhs   was
assessed   as   income   of   Appellant   no.   2(P.M.   Saheeda).     From   the
other   documentary   evidence   which   has   come   on   record,   it   reveals
that the construction and decoration of the theatre was undertaken
by   N.A.   Yusuf   as   a   proprietor.     A   finding   was   recorded   that   the
entire capital in M/s. Platinum Theatre in the names of N.A. Yusuf,
16

P.M. Saheeda(Appellant no. 2)  and her  minor   children  was  created
through   the   illegally   earned   money   by   N.A.   Yusuf   through   his
smuggling   activities.     It   was   supported   by   income­tax   returns   for
the assessment year 1975­76.  Appellant no. 2(P.M. Saheeda) which
claimed that the land was purchased by her for Rs.33,000/­ in the
year   1969   from   her   own   funds   generated   through   wedding   gifts   in
support of which no proofs was produced, and with land, the value
of the theatre would work out to be Rs.25.12 lakhs.  The appellants
failed to justify that the loan of Rs. 12 lakhs from Vijaya Bank was
ever invested in the subject theatre.  There was no document placed
on record which could justify  that Rs.12 lakhs was invested in the
construction   of   theatre.     According   to   the   finding   recorded   by   the
competent   authority,   more   than   50%   of  the   value  assessed(i.e.   Rs.
13.12   lakhs)   of   the   theatre   has   remained   unexplained   and
accordingly   the   theatre   was   liable   for   forfeiture   under   Section   7   of
the  Act, 1976, free from  all encumbrances, under  Order  dated 31 st
December,   1997.   On   appeal   being   preferred,   the   finding   stood
affirmed by order dated 7 th
 September, 1999.
17

16. Against the said order, a writ petition was filed before the High
Court   under   Article   226   of   the   Constitution.     The   learned   Single
Judge of the High Court revisited the factual matrix on record and
returned   a   finding   that   no   documentary   evidence   was   placed   by
either   of   the   appellants,   during   the   proceedings   initiated   by   the
competent authority, who are under an obligation to prove in terms
of   Section   8   of   the   Act   1976.     From   the   evidence   which   came   on
record, it could be gathered that out of the investment made by the
partners(Appellant  nos.  2  to  5)  to  the  tune  of  Rs.10.20  lakhs,  N.A.
Yusuf contributed Rs.5 lakhs and Appellant no.2(P.M. Saheeda) and
her children have contributed to the tune of Rs.5.2 lakhs each but
neither   N.A.   Yusuf   has   justified   any   source   from   where   his   capital
contribution   was   made   nor   the   explanation   was   tendered   by
Appellant   nos.   2   to   5   regarding   their   source   of   income   and   it   was
disbelieved at all stages and a finding was returned that major part
of   the   investment   has   been   treated   as   income   from   undisclosed
sources.     That   apart,   no   evidence   was   placed   by   Appellant   no.
2(P.M.   Saheeda)   on   record   to   justify   that   the   land   in   question   was
purchased from the resources available at her command in the year
18

1969,   through   the   sale   deed   dated   16 th
  April,   1969.     In   the   given
circumstances, the appellants are not entitled to seek protection of
Section 9 of the Act 1976.
17. That   apart,   as   regards   the   submissions   made   by   the   counsel
for   the   appellants   to   impose   fine   in   lieu   of   forfeiture,   as
contemplated   under   Section   9   of   the   Act   1976,   after   noticing   the
argument   advanced   by   the   appellants   before   the   High   Court,   a
categorical finding   has been  recorded  as to  why  the appellants  are
not entitled to seek protection of Section 9 of the Act 1976, which is
as follows:
“The  argument   of  petitioners’   counsel   is,   major   contribution
is from the petitioners and that the land in question was acquired
in the year 1969 prior to the entering into a partnership agreement
out   of   the   borrowings   of   2 nd
  petitioner   Saheeda   and   that   land   in
question   ought   not   have   been   taken   into   consideration   to   forfeit
the same, and as such, the Competent Authority and the Appellate
Tribunal   ought   to   have   taken   note   of   the   same   into   consideration
only to impose fine and not to forfeit the property and also the land
in question should be available to the petitioners and it should not
be the subject matter of forfeiture.
In this regard, it appears the Competent Authority as well as
the   Appellate   Tribunal   having   noted   the   transaction   and   also
having   noted   that   there   is   no   explanation   offered   by   the   2 nd
petitioner properly regarding acquisition of the land in question for
Rs.33,000/­   in   the   year   1969,   and   also   having   doubted   the
unsigned   agreement   between   the   2 nd
  petitioner   and   N.A.   Yusuf,
and in the absence of any such proper explanation as to source of
acquisition,   held   that   major   investment   remain   unexplained   and
also disbelieved the version of the 2 nd
 petitioner on the ground that
the proof of gift from her marriage has not been produced.   Thus,
19

according   to   the   Competent   Authority   as   well   as   the   Appellate
Tribunal, even if the value of the land is taken only at Rs.33,000/­,
the   total   value   of   the   land   and   building   will   work   out   at
Rs.25,20,000/­ and as such, it was of the view  that  major  part  of
the investment remained unexplained.   Even the accounts are not
maintained   in   respect   of   the   cost   of   construction   of   the   building
and all other various installations made.”  
  
18. Taking   into   consideration   the   submissions   made,   we   find   no
error   being   committed   in   the   finding   returned   by   the   High   Court
which may call for our interference.
19. Even   before   this   Court,   there   is   no   material   that   has   been
placed by Appellant no.2 (P.M. Saheeda) in rebuttal which may even
prima facie justify the sources of fund available at her command for
acquisition of the land in question to the tune of Rs.33,000/­ in the
year 1969.  In the absence of proper explanation as to the source of
acquisition and as majority of investment remains unexplained, the
authority   disbelieved   the   version   of   Appellant   no.   2(P.M.   Saheeda)
as  no  proof was  placed  on  record of  gifts from  her  marriage.   That
apart, if the value of the land is taken only of Rs.33,000/­, the total
value of the land and building work out at Rs.25,20,000/­, and as
such,   the   major   part   of   the   investment   still   remains   unexplained.
Even   the   accounts   were   not   maintained   in   respect   of   the   cost   of
construction of the building, in absence whereof, the authority has
20

not   committed   any   manifest   error   in   forfeiting   the   property   in
exercise of power under Section 7 of Act 1976.
20. Suffice   it   to   say   that   the   proceedings   were   initiated   in
reference to the appellants, in the first instance, pursuant to show
cause notice dated 13 th
 January, 1977 and the competent authority
passed   an   Order   of   forfeiture   on   23 rd
  November,   1977.     Later   that
came   to   be   set   aside   in   the   year   1991   and   fresh   forfeiture
proceedings   were   initiated   pursuant   to   show   cause   notice   under
Section   6   of   the   Act   dated   16 th
  October,   1994   which   finally
culminated into passing of order of the competent authority on 31 st
December,   1997   and   on   dismissal   of   appeal,   the   writ   petition   was
preferred  at  the  instance  of  the  appellants  and  the  matter  reached
to this stage.   Thus, in the given facts and circumstances, the very
plea of so called alleged gross delay in initiating the proceedings for
forfeiture of  the  property  is  misconceived  and  deserves  an  outright
rejection.
21. Consequently,   the   appeal   is   without   substance   and
accordingly dismissed.  No costs.
22. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
21

   ..…….………………….J.
   (AJAY RASTOGI)
   ………………………….J.
   (BELA M. TRIVEDI)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 22, 2023.
22