Partly allowed

FPA-ND-92/DLI/2014 of Suraj Kumar v/s The Competent Authority, Delhi

ATFP4 May 2017FPA-ND-92/DLI/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed the condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 68(O)(I) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The order stayed the operation of a forfeiture order regarding three immovable properties in Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, and listed the properties for further consideration after the respondent's reply.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay in appeal allowed; Operation of forfeiture order stayed; Request for additional documents is pending reply from respondent.

FPA-ND-92/DLI/2014 of Suraj Kumar v/s The Competent Authority… — Narcotics (NDPS) | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-ND-184/DLI/2017 (Stay) MP-ND-185/DLI/2017 (Exp.) MP-ND-186/DLI/2017 (COD)

¶3

¶4

FPA-ND-92/DLI/2014 Suraj Kumar … Appellant Versus The Competent Authority, Delhi … Respondent

¶5

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶6

For the appellant	:	Shri Gurpreet Singh, Advocate Shri Bakul Jain, Advocate
For the respondent	:	Shri D.S. Bisht, J.C.
CORAM
JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH	:	CHAIRMAN
SHRI G.C. MISHRA	:	MEMBER
SHRI B.K. BANSAL	:	MEMBER

¶7

ORDER 04.05.2017

¶8

FPA-ND-92/DLI/2014, MP-ND-184/DLI/2017 (Stay), MP-ND185/DLI/2017 (Exp.) & MP-ND-186/DLI/2017 (COD)

¶9

The appellant has filed the appeal under section 68(O)(I) of NDPS Act, 1985 against order dated 1^st February, 2017. Various contentions have been raised in the grounds of appeal. One of the contention of Mr. Sardari Lal, in para 14, is that he is residing in his property for the last forty years and the same was purchased by his father. However, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that Shri Sardari lal has no valid documents to prove the ownership except the documents filed with the application for taking additional documents on records. The learned FPA-ND-92/DLI/2017 Page 1 of 3

¶10

counsel for the appellant in his support has drawn attention to page no. 24 and 25 of the documents which are voter identity cards of Sardari lal and his wife issued on 21^st July, 2009 and 13^th June, 2007 respectively. He has referred to section 68(C) which reads as under:

¶11

“ 68C. Prohibition of holding illegally acquired property :(1) As from the commencement of this Chapter, it shall not be lawful for any person to whom this Chapter applies to hold any illegally acquired property either by himself or through any other person on his behalf.

¶12

(2) Where any person holds any illegally acquired property in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1), such property shall be liable to be forfeited to the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.

¶13

Provided that no property shall be forfeited under this Chapter if such property was acquired, by a person to whom this Act applies, before a period of six years from the date he was arrested or against whom a warrant or authorization of arrest has been issued for the commission of an offence punishable under this Act or from the date the order or detention was issued, as the case may be.”

¶14

Alongwith the appeal the appellants have also filed the applications for condonation of delay and to produce the additional documents (which were not produced before the Competent Authority). Mr. Bisht, accepts the notice on behalf of the respondent.

¶15

As far as condonation of delay is concerned the same is within the period of fifteen days after the period of 45 days. Mr. Bhist does not oppose. In view of the averments made in the application the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the application is disposed of.

¶16

As far as the appeal and application for additional documents is concerned, Mr. Bisht is opposing the prayer. He seeks four weeks time to file the reply. Let the same be filed within four weeks with an advance copy to the counsel for the appellant who may file the rejoinder within four weeks thereafter.

¶17

As far as the immovable properties i.e. at 1, 2, 3 in the table below are concerned, the operation of the order dated 1^st February, 2017 is stayed.

¶18

FPA-ND-92/DLI/2014

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

Immovable Properties

¶21

Sr. No.	Description of properties	Name of the owner	Value
1.	House built in Bhadroya, Tehsil & Police Station: Nurpur, Distt: Kangra, Himachal Pradesh	Shri Sardari Lal S/o Shri Ram Lal and Smt. Rekha Devi W/o Shri Sardari Lal	Rs. 84,56,000/-
2.	Land comprising of 0-03-84 HM land in Khata/Khatoni No. 217/435, Khasra No. 206, 207, 208 Mohal andMauza Bhadroya	Smt. Rekha Devi W/o Shri Sardari Lal	Rs. 500,000/-
3.	Land comprising of 0-01-28 HM land in Khata/Khatoni No. 220/467, Khasra No. 1871/49 Mohal and Mauza Jach, Tehsil: Nurpur, Distt. Kangra	Smt. Rekha Devi W/o Shri Sardari Lal	Rs. 30,00,000/-

¶22

List on 1^st September, 2017.

¶23

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶24

(G.C. Mishra) Member

¶25

(B.K. Bansal) Member

¶26

New Delhi, 4^th May, 2017

¶27

‘d’

¶28

FPA-ND-92/DLI/2014

¶29

Page 3 of 3

FPA-ND-92/DLI/2014 of Suraj Kumar v/s The Competent Authority, Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-ND-92/DLI/2014 of Suraj Kumar v/s The Competent Authority, Delhi

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