R KODANDARAMA REDDY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these petitions, the petitioners are challenging the order passed by the Competent Authority dated 10-1-2000 under Section 68-1 of the narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, so far as it relates to the property bearing No. 467 (renumbered as 7/1 and 7/2), situated at S. R. Layout, Murugeshpalya, Bangalore, contending that they are full and absolute owners of site No. 467, S. R. Layout, murugeshpalya, Bangalore, and that they had entered into an agreement with one Smt. Suganthi under Joint Development Agreement dated 4-3-1996. In terms of the agreement, Smt. Suganthi was required to complete the project within 24 months from the date of commencement of construction on the site and after completion of the building, 40% of the constructed area shall be given to the petitioners and 60% of undivided share along with building constructed thereon shall be held by the developer Smt. Suganthi who is third respondent in the petition. Annexure-A has been passed by the Competent Authority on the ground that one Mannivannan Mahadevan alias Rupen was found to be in possession of Narcotic Drugs and Proceedings were initiated against him under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. On interrogation, it was found that said business was looked after on behalf of Mannivannan Mahadevan alias Rupen by one Pakeerathan alias Ravi was the husband of third respondent-Suganthi and that Suganthi did not had income of her own and that out of income of drug trafficking business, her husband had invested money in the name of the third respondent. Accordingly, an order of forfeiture was passed in respect of the properties held by the third respondent as per Annexure-A. The third respondent aggrieved by the order passed by the Competent Authority filed an appeal before the appellate Tribunal for forfeited property, New Delhi. The appeal filed by the third respondent before the Appellate Tribunal for forfeited property was also dismissed on 4-12-2001. Pursuant to the confirmation order of the Competent Authority by the Appellate Tribunal, possession of the property of the petitioners was taken over by the respondent as per the order dated 22-3-2004. Therefore, the present petitions are filed challenging the order of the Competent Authority in forfeiting the properties of the petitioners.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the first petitioner is the father of the petitioners 2 to 4 and they being the owners of the property had entered into the Joint Development Agreement on 4-3-1996 with the third respondent Smt. Suganthi. The copy of the Joint Development agreement is produced as Annexure-B. On the same day, to enable the third respondent to proceed with the construction, they also executed a registered power of attorney in favour of third respondent, which is produced as Annexure-C. The petitioners on the ground that the third respondent did not comply with the terms and conditions of the Joint development Agreement, have revoked power of attorney as per annexure-D. The Joint Development Agreement was also terminated on 23-8-2001 by issuing a legal notice as per Annexure-E. Similarly they have also issued public notice intimating the public about the cancellation of Joint Development Agreement with the third respondent. The petitioners contend that they are in possession of the property as absolute owners in view of the third respondent not performing her part of contract as per the Joint Development Agreement and that the Joint development Agreement has not been acted upon; and as no building was constructed by the third respondent, property of the petitioners could not have been taken over by the second respondent, by passing an order of forfeiture. Therefore, they contend that the order passed by the competent Authority as per Annexure-A which has been confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal as per Annexure-J and order of taking over possession of the petitioner's property by the Competent Authority are to be quashed.

(3.) ACCORDING to the respondents 1 and 2, out of income of drug trafficking, the third respondent has invested on the property bearing no. 467, S. R. Layout, Murugeshpalya, Bangalore, and that she had paid entire consideration payable by her to the petitioners herein and therefore, Annexure-C namely power of attorney was executed by the petitioners in her favour and that on the date of order of forfeiture and on the date of initiation of proceedings under the provisions of Narcotic drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the third respondent was in possession as an absolute owner of the property. Therefore, the competent Authority had every right to forfeiture the property in question. In the circumstances, they request the Court to dismiss the petition.