AMANBIR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common questions of law and fact are involved in these two writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) By order dated 19th December, 1974, one Mehain Singh was detained under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act . He was alleged to be involved in smuggling of gold, opium etc. from Pakistan and Cardamom, clothes, Indian currency notes from India to Pakistan. He was also indulging in supply of intelligence regarding deployment of Indian Army and B.S.F. Units and other vital installations to the Army and C.I.D. Officers in Pakistan. During interrogation of certain Pak smugglers detained by the police, it was allegedly revealed that Mehain Singh, his son Kashmira Singh and nephew Makhan Singh had smuggled contraband gold worth Rs.15,26,00,000/- between the period August, 1968 to 1970. On receipt of information and on making inquiries and investigations it was revealed that certain properties were purchased by the aforesaid Mehain Singh. Reasons under Section 6(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (in short referred to as the SAFEMA) were accordingly recorded by the competent authority under the Act and notice under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued to the Affected Person on 4.11.1977 requiring him to indicate the sources of his income and assets etc. out of which or by means of which he had made investment in the purchase of land measuring 68 kanals, 11 marlas bearing Khasra/Khatauni No.95 in village Nathupur, Distt. Amritsar. These notices were sent to Mehain Singh's son Vir Singh as well as to one Kewal Singh who was his nephew. Objections to the notices under Section 6(1) issued to the aforesaid two persons were filed by both Kewal Singh as well as Vir Singh. In none of the objections any of the two persons, namely, Vir Singh or Kewal Singh had taken the plea that after purchase of the property by them they had entered into a settlement with their uncle, namely, Puran Singh or that after the settlement these persons did not have any right, title or interest in the said property. In fact these notices were challenged right up to the Supreme Court. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the Affected Persons alongwith other family members had filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court which was disposed of alongwith the case of Attorney General of India etc. Vs. Amratlal Prajivandas and others AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 2179 with the directions that the pending cases should be disposed of in the light of the observations made in that judgment. After the disposal of the writ petition by the Supreme Court, the Competent Authority on 16th November, 1995 passed an order directing the forfeiture of 1/5th share of each of the petitioners in the land measuring 68 kanals, 11 marlas in Khasra/Khatauni No.95 village Nathupura, Distt.Amritsar and 4/25th share of agricultural land measuring 158 kanals, 75 marlas in village Ganda Singh Wala Amritsar. On passing of this order, the competent authority on 13th December, 1995 directed the aforesaid effected persons to surrender and deliver within 30 days the possession of the aforesaid properties to the District Magistrate/Collector, Amritsar. These orders in so far as they related to land in village Nathupura, District Amritsar have now been challenged by the petitioner by filing these two writ petitions.

(3.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Affected Persons to whom notices were sent by the Competent Authority did not have any right, title or interest in the property in question as after its purchase by the Affected Persons, their father had entered into a family settlement with the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners on 21st September, 1973 whereby the property in question had fallen entirely to the share of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and consequently no order could be passed by the competent authority directing forfeiture of that property, nor any order could be passed for his surrender to the District Magistrate/Collector, Amritsar. It is submitted that the competent authority had no jurisdiction to pass the order in question and in any case as the petitioners and their predecessor-in-interest were holding the property since about 1972 and they were in actual possession thereof, no order under the Act could be passed without issuing notice under Section 6(2) of the Act to the petitioners. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that assuming the family settlement was not binding upon the Affected Persons, as they were not parties to the same, the petitioners had in any case become owner by adverse possession and consequently they could not be dis-possessed from the land in question pursuant to the order dated 16th November, 1995 passed under Section 7 of the Act.