KURUNGATTIL MOHAMMED KUTTY Vs. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this original petition is against Exts.P3, P13 and P14 orders.

(2.) Facts of the case are that according to the respondents proceedings under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act were initiated against the petitioner and an order of detention was issued against him by the Government of Maharashtra sometime in September, 1984. It is stated that although the petitioner was not detained pursuant to the order of detention, notice under Section 6 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) was issued. It would appear that the petitioner filed Exts.P1 and P2 replies disputing the applicability of the Act and unsustainability of the proceedings initiated. However rejecting the contentions, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P3 order forfeiting 40 cents of land in Sy. No. 83/7 of Oorakam Village along with a tiled house with land in Sy. No. 84/1 under Section 7(1) of the Act.

(3.) Petitioner filed Ext.P4 appeal before the Appellate authority accompanied by Exts.P5 to P8 affidavits of his uncle and father explaining the source of purchase of the property forfeited. He also raised additional grounds by filing Ext.P9 relying on Ext.P10 guidelines issued by the Government of India directing the competent authorities to deal with small cases of forfeiture of property where the value of the property involved is less than Rs. 1 lakh in the following manner.