Partly allowed

FPA-PMLA-1562/PTN/2016 of Shri Sanoj Yadav v. The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Patna

ATFP11 Feb 2021FPA-PMLA-1562/PTN/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In appeals against eviction notices and provisional attachment orders under PMLA, the Tribunal granted a conditional ad-interim stay maintaining status quo on government lands. The respondent's objections regarding government ownership and cash proceeds were deferred to the final hearing on merits.

What did the court decide?

Conditional ad-interim order of status quo granted on attached properties pending next hearing; attachments continued; disposal of property prohibited.

FPA-PMLA-1562/PTN/2016 of Shri Sanoj Yadav Vs. The Joint… — Writ and Judicial Review | ATFP (2021)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR SAFEMA FEMA, PMLA, NDPS & PBPT ACT AT NEW DELHI

¶2

1. MP-PMLA-8189/PTN/2021 (Stay)
MP-PMLA-8188/PTN/2021 (Urgent Listing) MP-PMLA-2945/PTN/2016 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1562/PTN/2016
Shri Sanoj Yadav	…	Applicant
Versus
The Joint Director,
Directorate of Enforcement, Patna	…	Respondent
2. MP-PMLA-8187/PTN/2021 (Stay) MP-PMLA-8186/PTN/2021 (Urgent Listing) MP-PMLA-3019/PTN/2016 (Stay) FPA-PMLA-1593/PTN/2016
Smt. Sindhu Devi	…	Applicant
Versus
The Joint Director,
Directorate of Enforcement, Patna	…	Respondent

¶3

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶4

For the Appellants	: Mr. Rajesh Mahale, Advocate
For the Respondent	: Mr. Neeraj Atri, Advocate
CORAM SHRI G.C. MISHRA	: ACTING CHAIRMAN
	ORDER 11.02.2021

¶5

The matters are taken up through video conferencing. The

¶6

appearance of the learned counsels are as above.

¶7

MP-PMLA-8188 /PTN/2021 (Urgent Listing) in FPA-PMLA 1562/PTN/2016 &

¶8

MP-PMLA-8186 /PTN/2021 (Urgent Listing) in FPA-PMLA1593/PTN/2016

¶9

The ld. Counsel for the appellants has filed the present applications for urgent listing of the appeals as the respondent has issued notice upon the appellants on 19.01.2021 received by the appellant on 27.01.2021 for taking possession under section 8(4) of the

¶10

FPA-PMLA-1593/PTN/2016 & FPA-PMLA-1562/PTN/2016 Page 1 of 5

¶11

PMLA, 2002 and has directed the appellant to vacate the properties within 10 days from the date of receipt of the said notice.

¶12

Considering the grounds mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The applications are accordingly disposed of.

¶13

MP-PMLA-8189/PTN/2021 (Stay) in FPA-PMLA-1562/PTN/2016 & MP-PMLA-8187/PTN/2021 (Stay) in FPA-PMLA-1593/PTN/2016

¶14

The appellants/applicants have filed the present applications seeking following reliefs:-

¶15

i. Grant interim stay of the further operation and execution of the impugned order dated 26.10.2016 passed by the Hon‟ble Chairman, Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA 2002 at New Delhi in Original Complaint No. 616/2016.

¶16

ii. Grant Interim stay of the Provisional Attachment Order No. 04/2016 dated 15.06.2016 in ECIR No. PTZO/07/2013 dated 12.09.2013 passed by the Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Patna Zonal Office, attaching the properties in the list mentioned therein, and

¶17

iii. Grant interim stay of the notice under section 8(4) of the PMLA, 2002 dated 19.01.2021 issued by the Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement Patna Zonal Office.

¶18

Alongwith the applications the appellants have annexed notices dated 19.01.2021 issued under section 8(4) of PMLA. 2002 directing the appellants to vacate the following properties within 10 days from the date of receipt of the said notices. The said notices dated 19.01.2021 stated to have been received by the appellants on 27.01.2021. The details of the properties listed in the notices are as below:-

¶19

Notice no. 1 in the appeal no. FPA-PMLA-1562/PTN/2016

¶20

Sl. No.	Sale Deed No. /dated	Description of	Properti	es	Properties acquired in the name of
1.	882/dtd. 20.03.2012	Tauzi No. 413, Shankarpur,	Thana Circle-	No. 146 Sadar	Sanoj Yadav S/o Kamal
		Munger, Distt- Acre 31.25 decim	Munger al]	[Area-1	Kishore Yadav
1.	1230/dtd.	Tauzi No. 413,	Thana	No. 146	-do-

¶21

FPA-PMLA-1593/PTN/2016 & FPA-PMLA-1562/PTN/2016

¶22

Page 2 of 5

¶23

11.04.2012 Shankarpur, CircleSadar Munger, Distt- Munger [Area-2 Acre 62.50 decimal]

¶24

Notice no. 2 in the appeal no. FPA-P MLA-1593/PTN/2016

¶25

Sl. No.	Sale Deed No. /dated	Description of Properties	Properties acquired in the name of
1.	1896/dtd. 13.06.2015	Khata No. 17, Khesra No. 345. Tauzi No. Jamabandi No. 36, Thana No. 146, Munger, Shankarpur, Circle- Sadar Munger, Distt- Munger [Area- 2.6190Decimal]	Smt. Sindhu Devi, W/o Sanoj Yadav.
1.	3782/dtd. 23.12.2008	Khata No. 95, Khesra No. 362,Tauzi No.“illegible”, Thana No. 50,....illegible”......... Distt. Munger[Area2acre 50 decimal]	-do-

¶26

During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the appellants submits that the appeals have been filed in the year 2016 and till date they have not parted with the properties. He has drawn attention of the order dated 27.04.2017 passed by the full Bench of this Tribunal and submitted that in the aforesaid order dated 27.04.2017 it was observed that :

¶27

“ the learned counsel for the appellant is pressing for interim order for which the separate MP 3019/2016 has been filed. We have verified the position from both the sides. The counsel for the appellant submits that no notice under section 8(4) has been received. In case the respondent chooses to issue such a notice, a copy of the notice may also be served to the counsel for the appellant who may take necessary steps for pressing the said prayer at that point of time. We may clarify that such prayer will be decided on merit” .

¶28

It is further submitted that the appellants have been served with eviction notices u/s 8(4) of the PMLA therefore they have approached this Tribunal. The properties, mentioned in the first notice above, in the name of Sh. Sanoj Yadav, which have been purchased in the year 2012 on payment of cash of Rs. 78, 000/- and 2,50,000/- respectively and the first property, mentioned in the second notice above, in the name of Smt.

¶29

FPA-PMLA-1593/PTN/2016 & FPA-PMLA-1562/PTN/2016

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

Sindhu Yadav, the other appellant, has been gifted by her brother-in-law and the second property, mentioned in the second notice above, has been purchased by her out of the pension fund of her father to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs in the year 2008 and that the alleged predicate offence is of the year 2009 and that the scheduled offences alleged to have been committed are under Arms Act-1959. These properties are agricultural lands in which the appellants have undertaken agricultural operations and they are living on it and that they have no other properties except the above. The appellants will abide by any conditions and the appellants are in possession of the attached properties and that no possession has been taken by the respondent as on today. From the date of confirmation of the attached till date they have not parted with the properties nor they will part with the same. On the aforesaid grounds the appellant is seeking adinterim stay of the operation of the impugned notices dated 19.01.2021.

¶32

On the other hand the ld. counsel for the respondent raised strong objection for grant of any interim stay of the operation of the impugned notices dated 19.01.2021. It is submitted by him that the lands are Government lands and that the payments towards the purchase of the lands have been made in cash which are proceeds of crime. He is not sure whether any agricultural operations have been undertaken on the aforesaid properties and that the appellants have failed to make out any case for grant of any interim order. Therefore, the stay application may be dismissed.

¶33

Heard both sides. It is an admitted fact that the impugned order is passed and the appeals have been filed in the year 2016 and that from the year 2016 to January, 2021 no eviction notice has been issued. The appellants were all along in possession of the properties and they have not part with the same. Further, there is no denial from the side of the respondent that there are any agricultural operations undertaken on the

¶34

FPA-PMLA-1593/PTN/2016 & FPA-PMLA-1562/PTN/2016

¶35

Page 4 of 5

¶36

aforesaid properties. There is also no denial that the appellants and their family members are dependant and the lands are source of their livelihood. The claims of the respondent that these are the Government land and that the properties were purchased on cash, would be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeals on merits. It is seen from the record that the pleadings are complete. The next date of hearing has already been fixed on 15.04.2021.

¶37

After considering the submissions made by the ld. counsels for both the parties, I am satisfied that the appellants have made out the case for grant of conditional ad-interim order of status quo till the next date of hearing. Accordingly, on the grounds stated in the preceding paragraphs, both the parties are directed to maintain the status quo with respect to the aforesaid properties till the next date of hearing. The order of status quo is subject to the following conditions:-

¶38

i. Attachments shall continue;

¶39

ii. The appellants are prohibited to create any third party rights or dispose of the said properties in any manner;

¶40

iii. No encumbrance shall be created by appellants in respect of the said properties.

¶41

List the appeals on 15^th April, 2021 for hearing. In the meantime, parties are directed to submit their written submission in digital form.

¶42

(G.C. Mishra)

¶43

Acting Chairman

¶44

New Delhi, 11^th February, 2021

¶45

„s‟

¶46

FPA-PMLA-1593/PTN/2016 & FPA-PMLA-1562/PTN/2016

¶47

Page 5 of 5

FPA-PMLA-1562/PTN/2016 of Shri Sanoj Yadav v. The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Patna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-PMLA-1562/PTN/2016 of Shri Sanoj Yadav v. The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Patna

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