Dismissed¶54

Hanifa Mithu Padiyar(Amended as Per Order DT.10/07/26) v. Competent Authority Safema/Ndps

SAFEMA – Limitation – Appeal under Section 12(4)

Gujarat HC10 Jul 2026SCA/10838/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gujarat High Court upholds SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal order dated 02.05.2024 dismissing FPA No. 71/BOM/2000 as barred by limitation under Section 12(4) SAFEMA (45 days + 15 days = 60 days overall); no statutory power to condone further delay; bald, unsupported averments on service and knowledge of 30.06.1999 forfeiture order; no documented ownership or right, title, interest; possession taken over 07.08.2000; R/SCA 10838 of 2025 dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

In view of the absence of any statutory provision empowering the Appellate Tribunal to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period, no fault can be found with the impugned order dated 02.05.2024; the Tribunal committed no error. ¶53

Hanifa Mithu Padiyar(Amended as Per Order DT.10/07/26) Vs Competent Authority Safema/Ndps — Gujarat HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners' appeal FPA No. 71/BOM/2000 against the Competent Authority's order dated 30.06.1999 was barred by limitation under Section 12(4) of the SAFEMA Act and whether the delay could be condoned. +3 more

¶42

Court's answer

¶53

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of any cogent material capable of inspiring confidence in support of the petitioners' case, no fault can be found with the impugned order.

¶53

Key takeaways

The appeal was admittedly preferred beyond the aggregate period of 60 days before the Appellate Tribunal, and the Tribunal was therefore fully justified in dismissing the petitioners' appeal as barred by limitation.ratio¶53
The petitioners' averments on service of notice were bald and unsupported by any documentary material or affidavit of an independent or third-party witness; the Appellate Tribunal rightly considered the appeal as filed beyond the 45-day limitation and 15-day further period under Section 12(4) of the SAFEMA Act, an overall period of 60 days.ratio¶48
Apart from possession of the properties, no documentary evidence was available to establish the petitioners' ownership or any legal right, title or interest in the properties in question, as conceded by their counsel.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

SAFEMA - Limitation - Appeal under Section 12(4) - No power to condone delay beyond 60 days. The High Court of Gujarat (Nirzar S. Desai, J.) declined to quash the order dated 02.05.2024 of the Appellate Tribunal under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 ('SAFEMA'), New Delhi, dismissing FPA No. 71/BOM/2000, the petitioners' appeal against the Competent Authority's order dated 30.06.1999 (Proceedings No. 15/SAFEMA/AHD/1999) forfeiting the agricultural lands, house properties and truck of late Mithu Bawa Padiyar under Sections 7 and 19 of the SAFEMA Act. Section 12(4) prescribes 45 days plus a further 15 days (overall 60 days) to appeal, and the statute contains no provision empowering the Tribunal to condone delay beyond that period; the appeal, admitted to have been preferred beyond the aggregate 60 days, was rightly dismissed as barred by limitation. The petitioners' claims of late knowledge of the 1999 order and of entitlement to a hearing as the deceased's son and deserted wife rested on bald averments unsupported by documentary material or independent third-party affidavits; counsel conceded no documentary evidence of ownership or right, title or interest apart from possession, and possession had been taken over as far back as 07.08.2000. Petition dismissed, no order as to costs; companion Civil Application (for Amendment) No. 1 of 2025 allowed and disposed.

¶1

C/SCA/10838/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10838 of 2025

¶4

With

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10838 of 2025

¶6

========================================================== SIKANDAR MITHU PADIYAR & ANR.

¶7

Versus

¶8

COMPETENT AUTHORITY SAFEMA/NDPS & ANR.

¶9

==========================================================

¶10

Appearance: TIRTH NAYAK(8563) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2

¶11

==========================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

¶13

Date : 10/07/2026

¶14

ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1

¶15

of 2025

¶16

The present Civil Application preferred by the petitioner is not seriously opposed. Hence, the same is allowed. The amendment, as prayed for, shall be carried out forthwith. The present Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶17

ORDER IN R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10838 of

¶18

2025

¶19

Heard learned advocate Mr. Tirth Nayak for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah for the respondents– Competent Authority, SAFEMA/NDPS.

¶20

Page 1 of 7

¶21

C/SCA/10838/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026

¶22

By way of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 02.05.2024 passed by respondent No. 2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Tirth Nayak stated that he does not press the prayer made in paragraph 7(A1). Accordingly, the matter was argued, and this Court has considered the petition only with respect to the relief sought in paragraph 7(A), namely, quashing and setting aside the order dated 02.05.2024 passed by respondent No. 2.

¶23

It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 is the son of late Mithu Bawa Padiyar, and petitioner No. 2 is the deserted wife of late Mithu Bawa Padiyar, who was treated as a person engaged in smuggling activities within the meaning of the provisions of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 ("SAFEMA"). Consequently, proceedings under the SAFEMA Act were initiated against the said Mithu Bawa Padiyar, culminating in an order dated 30.06.1999 passed by the Competent Authority in Proceedings No. 15/SAFEMA/AHD/1999 under Sections 7 and 19 of the SAFEMA Act. By the said order, the following two properties were held to be illegally acquired properties of Mithu Bawa Padiyar:

¶24

Page 2 of 7

¶25

C/SCA/10838/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026

¶26

I. Immovable Properties

¶27

A. Agricultural Lands

¶28

Land bearing Survey No. 71 (Paiki), admeasuring 4 acres, at Village Nundhatad, Taluka Abdasa, District Kutch, estimated value of Rs. 20,000/-.

¶29

Land bearing Survey No. 1097, admeasuring 29 acres and 16 gunthas, at Village Mothala, Taluka Abdasa, District Kutch.

¶30

B. House Properties

¶31

House properties at Village Nundhatad, Taluka Abdasa, District Kutch:

¶32

Survey No.	Nature of Property	Estimated	Market Value
2/52	Residential House	Rs.	30,000/-
2/55A	---do---	Rs.	20,000/-
2/55B	--do---	Rs.	20,000/-
2/60B	--do---	Rs.	35,000/-

¶33

II. Movable Property

¶34

Truck No. GTY-3244, registered in the name of Shri Mithu Bawa Padiyar since 03.02.1976.

¶35

Page 3 of 7

¶36

C/SCA/10838/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026

¶37

3.1. The Competent Authority and Administrator, SAFEMA/NDPS, Mumbai Unit, Ahmedabad, by order dated 30.06.1999, declared the aforesaid immovable and movable properties to be illegally acquired properties liable to be forfeited under Section 7(3) of the SAFEMA Act and the accused person was called upon to hand over the above properties under Section 19 to the inspecting officer, SAFEMA/NDPS, within a period of 45 days from the receipt of the order.

¶38

The aforesaid order dated 30.06.1999 was served upon the accused person on 02.07.1999. According to the petitioners, however, they came to know of the said order only on 07.08.2000, and, therefore, contended that the appeal filed by them was within 45 days from the date of acquiring knowledge of the order. However, in the very next paragraph of the application seeking condonation of delay, the petitioners took a contradictory stand by stating that, if the appeal were to be treated as having been filed against the order dated 30.06.1999, the delay of 357 days in preferring the appeal may be condoned on account of the illness of petitioner No. 2.

¶39

Except for the affidavit filed in support of the application, no documentary evidence was produced along with

¶40

Page 4 of 7

¶41

C/SCA/10838/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026

¶42

the application for condonation of delay. Ultimately, the Appellate Tribunal under the SAFEMA Act, New Delhi, by order dated 02.05.2024, dismissed FPA No. 71/BOM/2000, being the appeal preferred by the petitioners, on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond a period of limitation of 60 days, and hence, any delay beyond a period of 15 days cannot be condoned from the prescribed limitation of 45 days for filing the appeal against the order passed by the competent authority.

¶43

Learned advocate Mr. Tirth Nayak submitted that petitioner No. 2 is the deserted wife of late Mithu Bawa Padiyar and petitioner No. 1 is his son. It was contended that, although they had been deserted, they were in possession of the properties in question and, being persons affected by the forfeiture proceedings, they were entitled to an opportunity of hearing before possession of the properties was taken over. However, learned advocate Mr. Nayak could not dispute the fact that possession of the properties in question had, in fact, been taken over from the petitioners as far back as 07.08.2000.

¶44

6.1. Further, except for the averments made in the petition, no material has been annexed in support of the petitioners' case, either to establish that petitioner No. 2 was a deserted

¶45

Page 5 of 7

¶46

C/SCA/10838/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026

¶47

wife or that the properties in question belonged to the petitioners. On the contrary, during the course of submissions, learned advocate Mr. Tirth Nayak fairly conceded that, apart from the fact that the petitioners were in possession of the properties, no documentary evidence is available to establish their ownership or any legal right, title, or interest in the properties in question.

¶48

6.2. Further, insofar as the issue of service of notice is concerned, the petitioners have made only bald averments in the present petition as well as in the application for condonation of delay filed before the Appellate Tribunal. The said averments are not supported by any documentary material or by any affidavit of an independent or third party witness. In the circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal has rightly considered the fact that a petitioner's appeal was filed beyond a period of 45 days limitation and 15 days further period provided under Section 12(4) of the SAFEMA Act, which prescribed an overall period of 60 days for preferring an appeal against the order passed by the authority.

¶49

Learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah appearing for the respondents submitted that, in the absence of any statutory provision enabling the Appellate Tribunal to condone the delay

¶50

Page 6 of 7

¶51

C/SCA/10838/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026

¶52

beyond the period prescribed under Section 12(4) of the SAFEMA Act, the Tribunal was fully justified in refusing to condone the delay and in dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners as barred by limitation.

¶53

Upon perusal of the impugned order dated 02.05.2024, this Court finds that the Appellate Tribunal has not committed any error. In the absence of there being any cogent material capable of inspiring confidence in support of the petitioners' case, and in view of the absence of any statutory provision empowering the Tribunal to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period, no fault can be found with the impugned order. Admittedly, the appeal was preferred beyond the aggregate period of 60 days before the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal was fully justified in dismissing the petitioners' appeal as barred by limitation.

¶54

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any illegality committed by the Appellate Tribunal while passing the order dated 2/5/2024. Accordingly, the petition is required to be dismissed and same is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶55

(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)

¶56

BHAVIN MEHTA

¶57

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE ONE, at High Court of Gujarat on 14/07/2026 11:45:50

¶58

Page 7 of 7

Hanifa Mithu Padiyar(Amended as Per Order DT.10/07/26) v. Competent Authority Safema/Ndps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanifa Mithu Padiyar(Amended as Per Order DT.10/07/26) v. Competent Authority Safema/Ndps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sai Bandhan Infinium Pvt. Ltd. (Presently Known as- Sai Infinium Limited) Vs State of Gujarat

Bhushankumar Karsandas Jogi Vs Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Gujarat State

Sujataben Virendrasinh Bhadola Vs Office of Chief Passport Officer

Hitesh Manharlal Gandhi Vs Information Commissioner

Alnurben Gulabbhai Morvadiya Vs Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited, Circle Office

Jiva Ganesh Bala Vs Secretary , Gujarat Information Commission