Dismissed

FPA-3/DLI/2013 of Shri Prasad Singh & Anr. v/s Competent Authority, Delhi

ATFP8 Feb 2018FPA-3/DLI/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal held that the appeal against a property forfeiture order under the SAFEMA Act was barred by limitation as it was filed over 24 years after the order, far exceeding the 60-day limit allowed for condonation of delay.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed on the ground of limitation as it was filed way beyond the sixty days period under Section 12(4) proviso.

FPA-3/DLI/2013 of Shri Prasad Singh & Anr. v/s Competent Authority, Delhi — ATFP (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Decision: 08.02.2018

¶3

FPA-3/DLI/2013

¶4

Shri Prasad Singh & Anr. … Appellants Versus Competent Authority, Delhi … Respondent

¶5

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶6

For the appellants : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Munish Kumar, Advocate

¶7

CORAM

¶8

SMT. ANANYA RAY : MEMBER

¶9

JUDGEMENT

¶10

FPA-3/DLI/2013

¶11

An order of detention was passed under COFEPOSA against Sh. Surjug Singh alias Sh. Surjug Pahalwan on 13.09.1975.

¶12

The Competent Authority, Calcutta vide its order dated 16.3.1989 held that the properties as mentioned in the schedule of that order where illegally acquired property as defined under Section 3(1) (c ) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) SAFEMA (FOP) Act, 1976. He accordingly forfeited them to the Central Government.

¶13

The present appeals have been filed by one Sh. Prasad Singh and Sh. Parmanand Singh. The appeals have been filed on 01.10.2013. As per Section 12 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) SAFEMA (FOP) Act, 1976, any person aggrieved by an order of the Competent Authority may file an appeal within 45 days from the date when the order is served on him, provided that the

¶14

FPA-3/DLI/2013

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

Appellate Tribunal may entertain the appeal after the said period of 45 days, but not after 60 days on sufficient cause being shown.

¶17

In the present case, the delay is more than 24 years. The application for Condonation of Delay was heard on 05.01.2018. The Learned Advocate of the appellant stated that neither the copy of show cause notice under Section 6 of the SAFEMA nor the order of the Competent Authority has been served on the appellants i.e. Sh. Prasad Singh and Sh. Parmanand Singh. They came to know about the said order only when a survey was done to the land (property). Hence, there is no delay. The Counsel for the appellants was asked to submit a chronology of dates and events in the case within a month‟s time which has not been submitted as on date

¶18

Countering the above, the Learned counsel for the respondent stated that both the show cause notice and the order of the Competent Authority is against Sh. Surjug Singh @ Surjug Pahalwan and the present appellants are not a party to it. Both the show cause notice as well as the impugned order has been served on Sh. Surjug Singh as is apparent from the following:-

¶19

a. The notice u/s 6(1) of SAFEMA dated 31.03.1983 meant for Sh. Surjug Singh was received on 05.04.1983 as per the acknowledgement of the Postal Department placed on record.

¶20

b. Finding no response, a communication dated 19.05.1983 was sent by the Competent Authority addressed to Sh. Surjug Singh relating to the proceedings under section 6(1) of the SAFEMA at his residential address. The communication was received back with the remarks “service has been refused and the same is being returned”.

¶21

FPA-3/DLI/2013

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

c. Thereafter, a letter 26.02.1988 addressed to Sh. Surjug Singh was sent to his residential address informing that the case was fixed for hearing on 17.3.1988. The said communication was again received back with the remarks, “that the service has been refused”.

¶24

d. Another notice dated 23.2.1989 was issued to Sh. Surjug Singh at his residential address which as per the report of the Inspector, ITO, Munger was served by affixture at his residence on 09.03.1989.

¶25

e. With regard to serving of the impugned order dated 16.03.1989, the same was dispatched through Post with AD on 27.03.1989 addressed to Sh. Surjug Singh. As per the remarks of the postal authority, the receipt was refused. Thereafter, the task of serving the impugned order was assigned to the Inspector, Income Tax Office, Munger whose report dated 30.07.1989 as follows is self explanatory:-

¶26

“ As directed I went to Vill. Jaitpur, P.S. Barahiya

¶27

Dist. Munger to serve the order as noted above on Sh. Sarjug Singh alias Sarjug Pahalwan but he was not there. Again I went to him with the process server of this office but he did not receive the order stating very roughly to come next time and other day and this way he refused to receive the order. Finally, I went to him for the service of this order then he threatened me to go back otherwise he was to do any thing bad to me as he is a man of criminal type of his locality and this is why every person fears from him. The order could not be served by affixture even. Then, I along with the process server came back without serving the order.

¶28

FPA-3/DLI/2013

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

Under the circumstances, I return back the order

¶31

unserved”

¶32

6 From the above, it is clear that the Competent Authority has taken all measures to serve the notice as well as the impugned order on the party viz. Sh. Surjug Singh. However, he has deliberately either refused to accept it or was absent from his residence. Not receiving an order when served, willfully cannot be a ground for not filing of appeal on time. Moreover, the appeal, if any, against the impugned order should have been filed by him as per the provisions of SAFEMA which has not been done in the present case.

¶33

With regard to the appellants in the present appeal, i.e. Sh. Prasad Singh and Sh. Parmanand Singh wherein Sh. Prasad Singh is the brother of Surjug Singh and Sh. Parmanand Singh is the nephew of Sh. Surjug Singh. It is seen that they are not a party in the case at all and have filed this appeal purportedly only on the ground to protect their interest in the property, if any.

¶34

At this stage, I am not getting into the arguments on merit as the question of limitation with regard to filing of the appeal has to be decided first.

¶35

On the basis of the discussions above, I find that the appeal has not been filed on time as per Section 12 of the SAFEMA, 1976 and is way beyond the sixty days period under Section 12(4) proviso.

¶36

Hence, the appeal is dismissed on the ground of limitation.

¶37

(Ananya Ray)

¶38

Member

¶39

New Delhi, 8^th February, 2018

¶40

„M‟

¶41

FPA-3/DLI/2013

¶42

Page 4 of 4

FPA-3/DLI/2013 of Shri Prasad Singh & Anr. v/s Competent Authority, Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-3/DLI/2013 of Shri Prasad Singh & Anr. v/s 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