Dismissed¶75

Sheik Kamal v. Competent Authority

Madras HC13 Mar 2026WP/10845/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SAFEMA 1976 forfeiture upheld; Section 6(1) notices dated 09.02.1997; lands in names of detenu Shakul Hameed's sons (Sheik Kamal; Hussain Jalal @ Hussain) bought during their minority; no independent income; link to tainted funds conceded via petitioners' own explanation; Amratlal Prajivandas AIR 1994 SC 2179 distinguished; Tribunal confirmation (31.1.2001) of Competent Authority orders (2.2.2000) sustained; writ petitions dismissed; certiorari refused.

What did the court decide?

The orders of the Tribunal, to the extent they relate to the writ petitioners, stand confirmed; both writ petitions are dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition (WVMP No. 211 of 2008) is closed. ¶75

Sheik Kamal Vs Competent Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶75

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders of the Appellate Tribunal confirming forfeiture of the scheduled lands standing in the names of the writ petitioners — who admit the properties were acquired by their father, the detenu, while they were minors — can be quashed in writ proceedings under Article 226. +1 more

¶61

Court's answer

¶75

Ratio / Principle

Even on the petitioners' own explanation, the subject properties had been acquired only by the detenu, albeit in their names; these factual findings are concurrent, having been confirmed by the Tribunal, and the petitioners cannot dislodge or disprove them.

¶68

Key takeaways

The observations in Attorney General v Amratlal Prajivandas come to the aid only of properties that, though illegally acquired by the holder, cannot be traced back to the detenu's tainted funds; here the acquisition is admitted to be by the detenu himself, so the precedent does not advance the petitioners' case.ratio¶67
The records of the Competent Authority produced before the Court show that the petitioners' explanation dated 31.03.1995 makes clear that they do not have any independent or other sources of income from which the subject properties might have been acquired by them.ratio¶72

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Dr. Anita Sumanth, J., authoring the common order; Sunder Mohan, J. on the Bench) dismissed two writ petitions under Article 226 seeking certiorari to quash the common order dated 31.1.2001 of the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi, confirming the Competent Authority's forfeiture orders dated 2.2.2000 (OCA/MDS/348-351/76 and OCA/MDS/348-352/76) under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. The petitioners, sons of detenu Shakul Hameed (who died on 17.10.1994), had received notices under Section 6(1) dated 09.02.1997 regarding agricultural lands standing in their names. Their own explanations dated 31.3.1995 conceded that the detenu had purchased the lands while they were minors, and concurrent findings of the Competent Authority and the Tribunal established that they had no independent sources of income. The Supreme Court decision in Attorney General for India v Amratlal Prajivandas (AIR 1994 SC 2179) was distinguished: its protection extends only to illegally acquired property untraceable to the detenu's tainted funds, whereas here the acquisition was admittedly by the detenu. The Tribunal's orders relating to the petitioners were confirmed and the writ petitions dismissed without costs; the connected WVMP No. 211 of 2008 was closed.

¶1

W.P.Nos. 10845 & 8454 of 2001

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13.03.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶8

W.P.Nos. 10845 & 8454 of 2001

¶9

and

¶10

WVMP No. 211 of 2008

¶11

W.P.No. 10845 of 2001

¶12

Sheik Kamal

¶13

S/o. S.S.A.Shakul Hameed, West Street, Keelakarai

¶14

.. Petitioner

¶15

¶16

1.The Competent Authority, Smugglers, Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Properties) Act, Chennai.

¶17

2.The Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi.

¶18

.. Respondents

¶19

Prayer in W.P.No. 10845 of 2021: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the

¶20

records of the second respondent the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited

¶21

Property, New Delhi in the order dated 31.01.2001 made in FPA.No.72/Mds/95 confirming the findings of the Competent Authority,

¶22

1/8

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P.Nos. 10845 & 8454 of 2001

¶25

Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property)

¶26

Act, Chennai in OCA/MDS/348-351/76 dated 2.2.2000 and quash the same.

¶27

W.P.No. 8454 of 2001

¶28

Hussain Jalal @ Hussain S/o. S.S.A. Shakul Hameed, 14, Ethiraj Lane, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶29

.. Petitioner

¶30

¶31

1.The Competent Authority, Smugglers, Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Properties) Act, Chennai.

¶32

2.The Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi.

¶33

.. Respondents

¶34

Prayer in W.P.No. 8454 of 2021: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi in the order dated 31.1.2001 made in FPA.No.67/Mds/95 confirming the findings of the Competent Authority, Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, Chennai in OCA/MDS/348-352/76 dated 2.2.2000 and quash the same.

¶35

2/8

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.Nos. 10845 & 8454 of 2001

¶38

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Kumar Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Ramachandran (in both writ petitions) For Respondents : Mr.ARL.Sundaresan Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr.B.Rabu Manohar, SCGPC for R1 R2 – Tribunal (in WP 10845/2001) Mr.ARL.Sundaresan Additional Solicitor General assisted by Ms.Sushma, SPC for R1 R2 – Tribunal (in WP 8454/2001)

¶39

COMMON ORDER

¶40

(Made by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH, J.)

¶41

The challenge is to a common order of the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi, dated 31.1.2001, confirming the findings of the Competent Authority, Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, Chennai in OCA/MDS/348352/76 dated 2.2.2000.

¶42

The petitioners are sons of detenu, Shakul Hameed, who had passed away on 17.10.1994. The petitioners as well as their father /

¶43

3/8

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P.Nos. 10845 & 8454 of 2001 detenu are all persons affected as per Section (2) of the Smugglers and

¶46

Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (Act).

¶47

Notices under Section 6(1) had been issued on 09.02.1997 to all three.

¶48

We are concerned specifically with the notices issued to the writ

¶49

petitioners, proposing to forfeit the following lands.

¶50

SCHEDULE

¶51

S.No. Desc	ription	of the pr	operty	Na	me of the present holder of property
1	2				3
Agricultural lands.	S.No	Extent	Asst.	Classification	Village
G.R. Patta No.
959	140/2	5.22	20.88	Wet land	Nallirukkai Sri Shaik Kamal
959	140/1	1.08	4.32	-do-
959	139/1	2.20	1.78	Dry land

¶52

Value of the above Rs.10,000.

¶53

SCHEDULE

¶54

S.No.	Desc	ription of the	property		Name of the pres	ent holder of property
1		2				3
Agricu	ltural lands.	S.No.	Extent	Asst.	Classification	Village
G.R. P	atta No.
	960	146/1B	0.69	2.76	Wet lands	Nallirukkai Sri
	960	83/1A	0.72	3.60	“
	960	73/6A	0.34	1.70	“
	960	64/5A	0.46	2.30	“
	960	59/2A	0.40	2.00	“
	960	86/1A	0.70	3.60	“
	960	61/1A	2.03	10.15	“

¶55

Value of the above Rs.10,000.

¶56

The writ petitioners had, in response to the notices under Section

¶57

6(1), tendered explanations dated 31.3.1995 to the effect that they were

¶58

minors when the properties had been acquired, acceding to the position that the acquisition had been in their names by the detenu. The competent 4/8

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶60

W.P.Nos. 10845 & 8454 of 2001 authority thus forfeited the properties, being of the view that no valid explanation was tendered by them and there was a clear link established by the respondents qua the subject properties and the tainted money of the detenu.

¶61

The Tribunal confirmed the orders rendering a categoric finding of fact to the effect that the writ petitioners had no independent sources of income, and had also established no other sources by which the subject properties could have been acquired by them. It is assailing the aforesaid conclusions of fact that the present writ petitions have been filed.

¶62

We have heard Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, for Mr.S.Ramachandran, for the petitioner and Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General, assisted by Mr.B.Rabu Manohar, SCGPC and Ms.Sushma, learned Senior Panel Counsel, for R1.

¶63

The facts are not in dispute, in that the subject properties, even as per the explanation tendered by the writ petitioners, have been purchased in their names by detenu when they were minors. Though substantial stress has been laid upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Attorney General for India v Amratlal Prajivandas and other reported in AIR 1994 SC 2179, we are of the considered view that the judgment would not advance the case of the petitioners before us.

¶64

It is true that in the case of Attorney General (supra), the 5/8

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

W.P.Nos. 10845 & 8454 of 2001 Supreme Court has made it clear that it is incumbent upon the competent authority to establish the link between the properties sought to be forfeited and the tainted funds of the detenu. In fact, they have gone to the extent of stating in paragraph 44 that ‘the idea is not to forfeit the independent properties of such relatives or associates which they may have acquired illegally but only to reach the properties of the convict/detenu or properties traceable to him, wherever they are, ignoring all the transactions with respect to those properties’ .

¶67

These observations would come to the aid of properties that, though acquired illegally by the holder, could not be traced back to the tainted funds. Thus, in other words, even a property acquired illegally by a holder could be saved, if the competent authority was unable to establish a link to the funds of the detenu.

¶68

However, in the present case, even the explanation tendered by the writ petitioners is to the effect that the properties had been acquired only by the detenu, albeit in their names. These factual findings are concurrent, having been confirmed by the Tribunal as well, and the petitioners are not in a position to dislodge or disprove the same.

¶69

In fact, we had called for the records of the competent authority that have been produced before us by the respondents, wherein explanation dated 31.03.1995 tendered by the petitioners makes it crystal 6/8

¶70

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶71

W.P.Nos. 10845 & 8454 of 2001

¶72

clear that they do not have any independent or other sources of income

¶73

from which the subject properties might have been acquired by them.

¶74

In such circumstances, the orders of the Tribunal, to the extent

¶75

to which it relates to the writ petitioners, are confirmed and these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶76

[A.S.M, J.] [S.M, J.] 13.03.2026

¶77

Index:Yes/No

¶78

Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶79

ssm

¶80

¶81