Dismissed

FPA-PMLA-1157/JL/2015 of Joginder Kaur v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar & others

ATFP27 Sept 2016FPA-PMLA-1157/JL/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed an appeal seeking permission to harvest paddy from attached agricultural lands. The Tribunal held that the application was misconceived as the appellant was not the owner of the properties, which belonged to another individual.

What did the court decide?

The application seeking permission to harvest paddy from the attached lands was dismissed as misconceived.

FPA-PMLA-1157/JL/2015 of Joginder Kaur v/s The Deputy Director… — Money Laundering | ATFP (2016)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Decision: 27.09.2016

¶3

MP-PMLA-2738/JL/2016 (Misc.) in FPA-PMLA-1157/JL/2015

¶4

Joginder Kaur … Appellant/Applicant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar … Respondents & others

¶5

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶6

For the appellant	: Sh. R.K. Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent	: Sh. S.A. Saud, Advocate
SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA	: MEMBER

¶7

JUDGEMENT

¶8

MP-PMLA-2738/JL/2016 (Misc.) in FPA-PMLA-1157/JL/2015

¶9

This is an application filed by the appellant praying for being allowed to take the agricultural produce (paddy) from the attached land measuring 35 Kanal 18 Marla at Village Kanwa, District Amritsar and agricultural land measuring 32 Kanal and 2 Marla at Village Lopoke, District Amritsar on humanitarian grounds. On the last date of hearing, the matter was adjourned 21.09.2016 to enable the counsel for the respondent to obtain instructions in the matter.

¶10

Shri S.A. Saud, Advocate learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the comments to the application had been received from the Zonal Office of the Directorate through e-mail but the formal reply

¶11

FPA-PMLA-1157/JL/2015

¶12

Page 1 of 4

¶13

could not be filed for want of signatures of the concerned Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Chandigarh. However, considering the urgency, he sought liberty to file the comments received from the Enforcement Directorate during the course of the day. Liberty as prayed was granted. Arguments were heard on behalf of both sides on 21.09.2016 and order was reserved.

¶14

In the comments filed on behalf of the respondent, which were also argued by the learned counsel for the respondent when the matter was heard on 21.09.16, it has been stated that the possession of the attached lands in question has already been taken over by the respondent on 13.07.16. The agricultural lands in question were attached under the PMLA as proceeds of crime under a Provisional Attachment Order (P.A.O.) and subsequently confirmed by the adjudicating authority. Consequently, the agricultural produce (paddy) grown on the attached agricultural land is also proceeds of crime and to be treated on the same footing. It was submitted that the claim of the appellant that the paddy was required for the day to day livelihood and essential expenses of the appellant and her family was wrong and denied. It was further contended that the balance of convenience is also not in favour of the appellant as she is in possession of proceeds of crime derived from drug smuggling. The respondent have, therefore, opposed the application and requested that the same may be rejected.

¶15

Shri R.K. Thakur, Advocate learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the application has not been made as a matter of right but by way of a mercy petition on account of the fact that the main accused in the case namely Shri Maninder Singh @Bittu Aulakh, husband of the

¶16

FPA-PMLA-1157/JL/2015

¶17

Page 2 of 4

¶18

appellant is under judicial custody for the last three years. There is also no other male member in the family, other than the appellant’s husband’s old & aged father, to look after the family comprising of herself, two school-going children and old and aged parents-in-law. According to him, the family is dependent on the proceeds of the agricultural produce grown on the attached land for their day to day livelihood and essential expenses. In these circumstances, he prayed that the Hon’ble Tribunal may, on purely humanitarian grounds and as a one-time measure, allow the appellant to cut the paddy on the two attached agricultural lands in question with permission to dispose of the same in the market subject to such conditions as may be deemed appropriate by the Hon’ble Tribunal. In this respect he has also submitted that the related land have been got cultivated by letting it out to cultivators and as per the locally prevalent system, in such situation 50 % of the produce is required to be given to the cultivators and balance 50% is for the owners of the land and that this aspect may also be taken into consideration while passing orders in the matter.

¶19

The arguments made by both sides have been considered. From the P.A.O dated 30.03.2015 as well as the impugned order confirming the P.A.O., it is observed that both these orders mention the subject two attached properties namely (i) Agricultural land measuring 35 Kanal 18 Marla vide Vasika No. 809 dated 27.08.2012 in Village Kanwe, Distt. Amritsar and (ii) Agricultural land measuring 32 Kanal 2 Marlas vide Vasika No. 626 dated 10.07.2013 in Village Lopoke, Tehsil Lopoke, Distt. Amritsar for which the appellant/applicant has filed the present application,as being owned by Jagminder Kaur (appellant in appeal no. FPA-PMLA-1077/JL/2016) and not by the appellant/applicant, either singly, jointly or wholly. Further, even in the notice dated 11^th September, FPA-PMLA-1157/JL/2015 Page 3 of 4

¶20

Page 3 of 4

¶21

2016 issued by the respondent under section 8(4) of the PMLA directing the owner(s) to vacate the attached properties as mentioned therein, including the subject two agricultural lands, which was taken on record vide the Tribunal’s order dated 19.08.2016 in MP-PMLA-2713/JL/2015 filed by the appellant/applicant, the owner of the said two agricultural lands is shown as Jagminder Kaur (appellant in appeal no. FPA-PMLA1077/JL/2016)and not the present appellant/applicant. As the appellant/applicant is not the owner of the attached two agricultural lands in question either singly, jointly or wholly, in respect of which permission has been sought under the present application, the application has been made without consideration of the factual position and it is liable to be dismissed as misconceived.

¶22

The application is dismissed as misconceived.

¶23

Copy of the order be provided ‘ dasti ’ to both sides.

¶24

(Kaushal Srivastava) Member

¶25

New Delhi, 27^th ‘d’

¶26

27^th September, 2016

¶27

FPA-PMLA-1157/JL/2015

¶28

Page 4 of 4

FPA-PMLA-1157/JL/2015 of Joginder Kaur v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar & others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1157/JL/2015 of Joginder Kaur v/s The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar & others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases