S.Aysath Zulaika v. Competent Authority, Smugglers

Madras HC13 Mar 2026WP/7196/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SAFEMA forfeiture; Section 6(1) notice; 'person affected' versus 'any other person' under Section 6(2); COFEPOSA detenu relatives; Sridhana settlement; property omitted from notice stands outside forfeiture ambit; ministerial error plea rejected; Section 11 transfers-ignored provision inapplicable; Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property FPA.Nos.70/MDS/95 and 68/MDS/95; Competent Authority OCA/MDS/348-352/76; reliance on Income-tax Officer Circle 1(2) Kumbakonam v. V. Mohan (2021 SCC Online SC 1240); Madras High Court writ petitions allowed and Tribunal order quashed; bench Dr. Anita Sumanth J. and Sunder Mohan J.; decision dated 13-03-2026.

What did the court decide?

W.P.Nos.7196 and 7478 of 2001 allowed; the impugned order of the Tribunal quashed to the extent it relates to the Petitioners in W.P.Nos.7196 and 7478 of 2001; no costs.

S.Aysath Zulaika Vs Competent Authority, Smugglers — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

W.P.Nos.7196 and 7478 of 2001 allowed; the impugned order of the Tribunal quashed to the extent it relates to the Petitioners in W.P.Nos.7196 and 7478 of 2001; no costs.

¶¶188

Issue for consideration

Whether the procedure adopted by the authorities under the SAFEMA in issuing the forfeiture notices in this case was proper. +2 more

¶¶39

Court's answer

A distinction was drawn between a 'person affected' under Section 6(1) of the Act (the detenu and persons demarcated under Explanation (2) to Section 2(c)) and the 'any other person' referred to in Section 6(2), the latter being a person identified to be holding property on behalf of a person affected.

¶¶164

Ratio / Principle

For the purposes of the Act and bearing in mind the scheme of Section 6, the properties set out in the annexure to the Section 6(1) notice issued to the detenu cannot be telescoped into or considered to be included as part of the Section 6(1) notice issued to Mohammed Daha Ummal.

¶¶162

Key takeaways

While the 'any other person' category is entitled to a notice and hearing prior to a decision, the order of forfeiture would essentially be of the detenu's property held by the third party as a benamidhar; in the case of a person affected, the forfeiture is of that person's own property.ratio¶¶165
Since notice was issued to Mohammed Daha Ummal under Section 6(1) treating her as a 'person affected', the forfeiture against her is confined only to the properties referred to in the notice dated 09.02.1977 issued to her in her individual capacity as 'person affected'; properties not included in that notice stand outside the ambit of forfeiture under the SAFEMA.ratio¶¶169

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Dr. Anita Sumanth J. & Sunder Mohan J.), common order dated 13-03-2026 in WP Nos. 7196 and 7478 of 2001: Two daughters of a COFEPOSA detenu (S.S.A.Sahul Hameed), each proceeded against as a 'person' under Section 2(2)(c) SAFEMA, challenged the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property's order dated 31.1.2001 in FPA.Nos.70/MDS/95 and 68/MDS/95 confirming the Competent Authority's findings (OCA/MDS/348-352/76 dated 2.2.2000) forfeiting 8 cents in S.Nos.324/1693, 1694, 1695 and 1818 ('subject property'), standing in the name of their mother Mohammed Daha Ummal and partly settled on the petitioners as Sridhana (documents dated 02.08.1978 and 04.07.1984). Held: although the subject property appeared in the annexure to the detenu's Section 6(1) notice dated 09.02.1977 (with a copy served on the wife/daughter per Section 6(2)), it was not included in the separate Section 6(1) notice issued to Mohammed Daha Ummal as a 'person affected'; properties in the detenu's notice cannot be telescoped into her notice; forfeiture against a 'person affected' is confined to the properties in her own notice, and omitted properties stand outside the ambit of the SAFEMA; the 'ministerial error' explanation was rejected as contrary to the statutory mandate and scheme of Section 6; Section 11 (post-notice transfers ignored) had no application since the transferred property was outside the Act ab initio. The Court drew support from Income-tax Officer Circle 1 (2) Kumbakonam v. V. Mohan (2021 SCC Online SC 1240) on 'person affected'/'such other person'. Writ petitions allowed; impugned order quashed to the extent it relates to these petitioners; no costs.

¶1

WP Nos. 7196 and 7478 of 2001

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶8

WP Nos. 7196 and 7478 of 2001

¶9

S.Aysath Zulaika ..Petitioner in W.P.No.7196 of 2001

¶10

Katheejathul Rilwana ..Petitioner in W.P.No.7478 of 2001

¶11

¶12

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

¶13

Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi

¶14

..Respondent in both W.P.’s

¶15

Common Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of 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.Nos.70/MDS/95 and 68/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.

¶16

__________ Page1 of 17

¶17

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

¶18

WP Nos. 7196 and 7478 of 2001

¶19

In both W.P.’s

¶20

For Petitioner(s): Mr. B.Kumar Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Ramachandran For Respondent(s): Mr. ARL.Sundaresan Additional Solicitor General of India for Mr.J.Madhanagopal Rao Senior Standing Counsel (for R1) R2 – Tribunal

¶21

COMMON ORDER

¶22

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.)

¶23

W.P.No.7196 of 2001 is filed challenging an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property (Tribunal). The decision is dated 31.01.2001 and has been passed in common in the case of the Writ Petitioner and other relatives of one S.S.A.Sahul Hameed, a detenu under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA), 1974 and held to be a ‘person’ under Section 2(2)(b) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (in short ‘SAFEMA’/’Act’ ).

¶24

The petitioner is the daughter of the detenu and was also proceeded with on the basis that she was a ‘person’ under Section 2(2)(c) of the SAFEMA.

¶25

The implication is that the petitioner is one to whom the provisions of Act would apply in terms of Section 2 thereof.

¶26

__________ Page2 of 17

¶27

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

¶28

WP Nos. 7196 and 7478 of 2001

¶29

A notice under Section 6(1) was issued to the detenu on 09.02.1977, accompanied by an annexure that identified various parcels of land for the purpose of forfeiture under Section 5 of Act. Inter alia, the Competent Authority identified a parcel of 8 cents in S.Nos.324/1693, 1694, 1695 and 1818 (‘subject property’) as standing in the name of detenu’s wife Mohammed Daha Ummal.

¶30

Along with the notice, reasons were recorded, and at paragraph 11 of the reasons, there is mention of the 8 cents as aforesaid, though standing in the name of his wife Mohammed Daha Ummal. The notice under Section 6(1) contains an endorsement in conclusion, to the effect that a copy has been forwarded to a) Smt.Mohammed Daha Ummal, wife of the detenu and b) Ameenathu Fathima, daughter of the detenu, in terms of Section 6(2) of the SAFEMA.

¶31

While so, a separate notice has been issued under Section 6(1) of the SAFEMA to Mohammed Daha Ummal proposing forfeiture of properties alleged illegally acquired, as per the schedule thereto. The schedule contained the description of agricultural lands in Kooriyur, Mayakulam and Erwadi. Significantly, the subject property identified under the notice issued to the detenu, did not figure in the aforesaid notice.

¶32

Show cause notices were issued to the petitioners, in response to which, they tendered the explanation that out of the 8 cents that stood in the name of Mohammed Daha Ummal, (i) 1386 sq.ft. along with construction

¶33

Page3 of 17

¶34

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

¶35

WP Nos. 7196 and 7478 of 2001

¶36

thereupon had been settled in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.7196 of 2021 as Sridhana, vide registered document bearing No.1164 of 1978 dated 02.08.1978, and (ii) 1245 sq.ft had been settled on the petitioner in W.P.No.7478 of 2001, as Sridhana vide document dated 04.07.1984.

¶37

The said documents have admittedly been produced before the authorities as well. It was thus her express submission that the land had devolved on her through her mother as Sridhana, and hence could not be made the subject matter of forfeiture under the SAFEMA.

¶38

Overriding the explanations tendered, the Competent Authority passed an order dated 28.04.1995 which was carried in appeal before the Tribunal. In the course of hearing, the Tribunal considered the preliminary ground of violation of principles of natural justice and passed orders dated 05.05.1998 and 16.11.1999 calling for a remand report from the Competent Authority after hearing the petitioner as well as other legal heirs of the detenu.

¶39

The Competent Authority took note of the submissions of the petitioner as well as others and tendered his comments on 02.02.2000, considering which, the impugned order of the Tribunal has been passed, which is assailed in these Writ Petitions. The legal issue that arises for our consideration is as to whether the procedure adopted by the authorities in this case is proper.

¶40

Page4 of 17

¶41

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

¶42

WP Nos. 7196 and 7478 of 2001

¶43

Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

¶44

Mr.S.Ramachandran, learned counsel for the petitioner would take us through

¶45

the scheme of SAFEMA, particularly Sections 2, 6, 7 and 11. His submissions

¶46

are that the property sought to be forfeited was outside the ambit of the SAFEMA and that the provisions of Section 7 would be inapplicable in the present case. He relies on the following decisions:

¶47

i. R.Ramakrishnan V. Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property.¹

¶48

ii. C.A. V. Mohammed Thahaumma & Ors.²

¶49

iii. SSA Khatija Rilwana and Ors. V. Competent Authority³

¶50

iv. Aminath Fathima V. Competent Authority⁴

¶51

v. Income Tax Officer, Circle 1(2) V. V.Mohan⁵

¶52

vi. Attorney General for India V. Amratial Prajivandas⁶

¶53

vii. Fatima Mohd Amin V. Union of India⁷

¶54

viii. Kesar Devi V. Union of India⁸

¶55

ix. P.P.Abdulla V. Competent Authority⁹

¶56

x. Mohammed Merchant V. Competent Authority¹⁰

¶57

xi. Competent Authority V. M.Khader Moideen¹¹

¶58

xii. South Central Railway Employee Co-OP. Credit society employees Union V. B.Yasodabai and others.¹²

¶59

1 2011 (2) MWN (Crl) 582

¶60

2 2024 SCC Online Mad 4060

¶61

3 SLP Civil Diary No (S) 5372/2025

¶62

4 2017 (4) TMI 1069

¶63

5 2021 SCC Online SC 1240

¶64

6 AIR 1994 SCC 2179

¶65

7 2003 (7) SCC 436

¶66

8 2003 (7) SCC 427

¶67

9 2007 (2) SCC 510

¶68

10 2008 (14) SCC 186

¶69

11 2017 (1) LW (Crl) 139

¶70

12 Civil Appeal No.7130/2002

¶71

__________ Page5 of 17

¶72

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

¶73

WP Nos. 7196 and 7478 of 2001

¶74

xiii. Suganthi Suresh Kumar V. Jagadeesan¹³

¶75

xiv. Surinderkumar & anr V. UOI and others¹⁴ xv. Gulshan Ahuja and Ors. V. UOI and others¹⁵

¶76

xvi. Radhey Shyan Datta V. UOI & another¹⁶

¶77

xvii. Hamida beevi V. C.A.¹⁷

¶78

xviii. V.P.Ranganathan V. Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Properties¹⁸

¶79

xix. Competent Authority, Delhi V. Manpreet Singh Oberai¹⁹ xx. Kannanchery Abdu V. C.A. and Ors²⁰

¶80

xxi. Aamenabai Tayebaly V. Competent Authority under SAFEMA²¹

¶81

xxii. Parvathi Bai V. C.A.²²

¶82

xxiii. Raza Textiles V. I.T.Officer, Rampur²³ xxiv. Sh.Gulshan Ahuja and Ors.V. Union of India and Ors.²⁴

¶83

xxv. Aslam Mohammad Merchant V. C.A and Ors.²⁵ 11. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General, assisted by

¶84

Mr.J.Madana Gopal Rao, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for R1, for

¶85

his part, would submit that notice under Section 6(1) had been issued to the mother of the petitioner. That apart, a copy of the notice issued under Section 6(1) to the detenu was also marked to the mother of the petitioner and together,

¶86

13 2002 (2) SCC 420

¶87

14 2011 SCC Online Delhi 3187

¶88

15 2004 SCC Online Delhi 1158

¶89

16 2023 SCC Online Delhi 4907

¶90

17 1994 SCC Online AFTP 5

¶91

18 2010 SCC Online Mad 4222

¶92

19 2017 SCC Online Del 11521

¶93

20 W.A.No.1645 of 2007 (E) dated 24.02.2009 High Court of Kerala

¶94

21 AIR 1998 SC 484

¶95

22 W.P.No.31869 of 2003 dated 11.11.2008 High Court of Madras

¶96

23 AIR 1973 SC 1362

¶97

24 WPC.5577/1999, 1274/2000 and 1606/2000 dated 17.12.2004 High Court of Delhi 25 (2008) 14 SCC 186

¶98

__________ Page6 of 17

¶99

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

¶100

WP Nos. 7196 and 7478 of 2001

¶101

the notices would subserve the provisions of the Act. Hence, the forfeiture of the property has been rightly done. He too relies on a decision in R.Ramakrishnan²⁶

¶102

Having heard both learned counsel, our decision is as follows. In the interests of clarity, we would recapitulate the facts, to the extent to which they are admitted. Notice under Section 6(1) was issued to the detenu on 09.02.1977. The annexure to the notice identifies, in S.No. 4 (d), the subject property, being 8 cents in S.No.324/1693, 1694, 1695, 1818 standing in the name of Mohammed Daha Ummal. A copy of notice dated 09.02.1977 issued under Section 6(1) to the detenu has been forwarded to Mohammed Daha Ummal, in line with Section 6(2) of SAFEMA.

¶103

Separately, notice has been issued under Section 6(1) of SAFEMA on the same day to Mohammed Daha Ummal, wherein other parcels of agricultural lands have been identified. However, the subject property does not find mention therein. It is thus the submission of the petitioners, that 1386 sq.ft. out of the subject property along with construction thereupon, settled on one petitioner by way of registered Sridhana vide document dated 02.08.1978, and 1245 sq.ft settled on the other petitioner as Sridhana vide document dated 04.07.1984, would stand out of the ambit of forfeiture.

¶104

26 Foot Note Supra (1)

¶105

__________ Page7 of 17

¶106

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

¶107

WP Nos. 7196 and 7478 of 2001

¶108

Section 2 of SAFEMA states that the provisions of the Act would

¶109

apply to the detenu and every person who is a relative of a detenu. Explanation

¶110

(2) to Section 2 defines a relative as a spouse, brother or sister of the spouse, lineal ascendant or descendant of the detenu, lineal ascendant or descendant of the spouse of the detenu and various other categories of relatives with which we are not concerned in the present matter.

¶111

Admittedly, the spouse of the detenu is a person to whom the provisions of the Act would apply. Section 6 provides for issuance of a notice for forfeiture and Section 6(1) provides for a notice to be issued by the Competent Authority, if he has reason to believe that properties have been illegally acquired by a person (referred to as a ‘person affected’) calling upon them to show cause why they should not be declared to be illegally acquired properties.

¶112

In the present case, the reasons recorded for issuance of notice under

¶113

Section 6(1) to the detenu identifies at paragraph 11, the following properties:

¶114

11. There is also information that this person holds the following lands and car.

¶115

1) 11 cents - S.No.324/1815, 2663.

¶116

2) 9 cents - S.No.324/1693, 1694, 1695, 1818 in the name of his wife Mohd.Taha Umma.

¶117

3) 3.40 acres – Patta 344 and 285/4 – Jointly owns with Habeeb Mohd. Meera in a property of 8 acres.

¶118

4) 8.90 acres - Patta No.214-S.No.174/2.

¶119

Page8 of 17

¶120

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

¶121

WP Nos. 7196 and 7478 of 2001

¶122

5) 1.23 acres – Patta No.302 – S.No.291/2-1/5th share owned by his wife.

¶123

6) 30 acres – At Nallikarai in his name.

¶124

7) 3 acres – At Ramnad Opp: to Periakanmai in his name.

¶125

8) 18 acres – At Mayakulam in the name of his wife Smt. Mohd. Daha Ummal.

¶126

9) 1.16.5 acres – Patta No.823 – S.No.396/4 Asst.2.33 Dry Land – Cocoanut plantation.

¶127

10) 0.90.0 acres – Patta No.572-S.No.392/1 Asst. 1.80 Dry land.

¶128

11) 1.79.5 acres – Patta No.831 – S.No.420/2 Asst. 3.59 Dry Land in the name of daughter Ameenathu Fathima

¶129

12) 4.50 acres – Patta No.198- S.No.394 Asst. 16.17.

¶130

13) Car TMN.1206 Ambassador.

¶131

There is no evidence that these lands and car were acquired from any legal or explained sources. Hence these will be taken as acquired from out of unexplained sources of funds. The estimated value of these lands will be not less than Rs.25,000/-.

¶132

Notice dated 09.02.1977 has been issued under Section 6(1) of the

¶133

Act to the detenu, proposing forfeiture of the properties set out in the Annexure

¶134

thereto. The details of properties as per Annexure read thus:

¶135

ANNEXURE

¶136

S.No. Description of the Property Present holder of the property ------------------------------------------------------------------------1. Indian Bank – Rs. 136 Sri S.S.A.Shahul Hameed alias Lucky Savanna 2. Right, title and interest in the firm of M/s.Lucky -doElectricals, Madras, including Rs.52,351/3. Cash balance as on 31-3-75 Rs.5998 -do-

¶137

Page9 of 17

¶138

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

¶139

WP Nos. 7196 and 7478 of 2001

¶140

-do-

¶141

4.	AGRICULTURAL LANDS .	-do-
a)	Agricultural lands at Erwadi, Ramnad Dist., acquired on 24-11-1964 Rs.500/-
b)	Agricultural lands at Erwadi, Ramnad Dist., acquired on 29-1-1971 Rs.500/-
c)	Extent of land 11 cents (k... not legible) …	Description . S.No.324/1815, 2663 (wife’s name
d)	8 cents (“) …	S.No.324/1693, 1694, 1695, 1818 in the name of his Wife Mohd. Daha Ummal
e)	3.40 acres …	Patta 344 & 285/4 – jointly owned in a property of 8 acres.
f)	8.90 acres …	Patta No.214-S.No.174/2
(wife) g)	1.23 acres …	Patta No.302-S.No.291/2-1/5^th share owned by his wife. Smt.Mohd. Daha Ummal.
(wife) h)	18 acres …	At Mayakulam in the name of his wife Smt.Mohd. Daha Ummal
i)	30 acres …	At Nallikarai in the name of himself
j)	3 acres …	At Ramnad opposite toPeriakanmai in the name of himself.
k)	1.16.5 ” …	Patta No.823 S.No.396/4 Asst. 2.33 Dry land – Coconut plantation.
l)	0.90.0 ” …	Patta No.572 S.No.392/1 Asst. 1.80 Dry land.
m)	1.79.5 ” …	Patta No.831- S.No.420/2 Asst. 3.59 Dry land in the name of daughter

¶142

__________ Page10 of 17

¶143

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

¶144

WP Nos. 7196 and 7478 of 2001

¶145

¶146

Ameenathu Fathima.

¶147

n) 4.50 acres … Patta No.198 S.No.394 Asst. 16.17. Value of items (c) to (n) Rs.25,000.

¶148

5. Car TMN 1206 Ambassador.

¶149

6. Interest in Life Insurance Policy. Mr.S.S.A.Sahul Hameed

¶150

a) All India General Insurance Company Policy No.34811 dt.13-5-1961 for Rs.5,000.

¶151

b) The United India Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Madras Policy No.105614 dt.29-12-1961 for Rs.2,500.

¶152

c) National Indian Life Insurance Co., Calcutta. Policy No.64197254 dt.30-12-1961 for Rs.4,000.

¶153

It is relevant to note that the properties stated to be standing in the

¶154

name of Mohammed Daha Ummal as per the notice issued to the detenu do not find place in notice dated 09.02.1977 (erroneously stated as 09.02.1976) issued

¶155

to Mohammed Daha Ummal. Instead, the properties referred to in notice dated 09.02.1977 issued to Mohammed Daha Ummal are:

¶156

S.No.	Desc	ription of t	Sched he propert	ule y Nam	e of the present	holder of
property 1		2			3
Agriucltural lands.	G.R. Patta	S.No	Extent	Asst.	Classification
Name	of No.
village
Kooriyur	57	86/4	2.06	13.91	Wet land	Smt.
	57	86/38	0.37	2.50	-do-	“
Mayakulam	139	195/3	25.62	9.42	Dry land	“
Erwadi	857	486/1	1.68.5	3.37	-do-	“
	611	509/1	0.12.0	7.68	Dry lands	(with
					building &	rest

¶157

__________ Page11 of 17

¶158

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

¶159

WP Nos. 7196 and 7478 of 2001

¶160

house – No.6/10

¶161

Value of the above Rs.25,000

¶162

Hence, for the purposes of the Act, and bearing in mind the scheme of Section 6, we are unable to conclude that those properties set out in annexure to notice issued to the detenu should be telescoped or considered to be included as part of the notice issued under Section 6(1) to Mohammed Daha Ummal.

¶163

Section 6(2) of the Act requires that, where the notice issued under Section 6(1) specifies that any property referred to therein was being held by any other person, then the copy of Section 6(1) notice shall be sent to such other person as well.

¶164

There is a difference between a ‘ person affected ’ under Section 6(1) of the Act, and ‘any other person’ referred to in Section 6(2). A person affected in Section 6(1) is a person to whom the provisions of the Act will apply, being the detenu and those persons demarcated under Explanation (2) to Section 2(c) of the Act, whereas, ‘ any other person ’ referred to in Section 6(2), is a person who has been identified to be holding property on behalf of a person affected.

¶165

While the latter category of person is entitled to a notice and a hearing prior to a decision by the authorities, the order of forfeiture would, essentially be of a property of the detenu held by the third party as a benamidhar. In the case of a person affected, the forfeiture would be of the property of that person itself.

¶166

__________ Page12 of 17

¶167

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

¶168

WP Nos. 7196 and 7478 of 2001

¶169

In the present case, notice has been issued to Mohammed Daha Ummal under Section 6(1) of the Act treating her as a ‘person affected’. Thus, the forfeiture is to be confined only to those properties referred to in notice dated 09.02.1977 issued to Mohammed Daha Ummal in her individual capacity as ‘person affected’ under the provisions of the Act, and those properties not included in the aforesaid notice, would, in our considered view, stand outside the ambit of forfeiture under the provisions of the SAFEMA.

¶170

As a sequitur, mere reference to the subject property in the annexure to notice under Section 6(1) issued to the detenu, is of no assistance to the respondents. Equally so, the tentative defence of Mr.Sundaresan, that the non-inclusion of the subject property in the Section 6(1) notice to Mohammed Daha Ummal must be taken to be a ministerial error, does not appeal to us, as it is contrary to the statutory mandate and the very scheme of Section 6.

¶171

Though several decisions have been cited before us, it would suffice that we make reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Income-tax Officer Circle 1 (2) Kumbakonam and another V. V. Mohan²⁷ . That too was a matter that dealt with preventive detention and we draw support from the interpretation accorded to the phrases ‘ person affected ’ and ‘ such other person ’ in Section 6(1) of the Act. Section 6 reads thus:

¶172

6. Notice of forfeiture.-

¶173

27 Foot Note Supra (5)

¶174

__________ Page13 of 17

¶175

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

¶176

WP Nos. 7196 and 7478 of 2001

¶177

(1) If, having regard to the value of the properties held by any person to whom this act applies, either by himself or through any other person on his behalf, his known sources of income, earnings or assets, and any other information or material available to it as a result of action taken under section 18 or otherwise, the competent authority has reason to believe (the reasons for such belief to be recorded in writing) that all or any of such properties are illegally acquired properties, it may serve a notice upon such person (hereinafter referred to as the person affected) calling upon him within such time as may be specified in the notice, which shall not be ordinarily less than thirty days, to indicate the sources of his income, earnings or assets, out of which or by means of which he has acquired such property, the evidence on which he relies and other relevant information and particulars, and to show cause why all or any of such properties, as the case may be, should not be declared to be illegally acquired properties and forfeited to the Central Government under this Act.

¶178

(2) Where a notice under sub-section (1) to any person specifies any property as being held on behalf of such person by any other person, a copy of the notice shall also be served upon such other person.

¶179

At paragraph 64 of the SCC Online report, the Court dilates on the

¶180

phrase ‘ such other person ’ as referring to the person other than the person to whom the Act applies, being merely a holder of illegally acquired property on

¶181

behalf of the person to whom the Act applies. In the present case, had the respondents stopped with the issuance of the copy of the Section 6(1) notice, it would have had the connotation and impact, that they canvas.

¶182

However, the respondents have proceeded to issue a notice under Section 6(1) to Mohammed Daha Ummal directly holding her as a ‘person affected’ under the Act. With the issuance of the notice under Section 6(1) to Mohammed Daha Ummal as a ‘person affected’, the issuance of copy of detenu’s Section 6(1) notice to her is of no consequence. In fact, read together,

¶183

Page14 of 17

¶184

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

¶185

WP Nos. 7196 and 7478 of 2001

¶186

the two notices would illustrate and emphasize the position that the Competent Authority meant only to proceed against the properties set out in the notice issued to her directly.

¶187

Section 11 states that where after the issue of a notice under section 6 or under section 10, any property referred to in the said notice is transferred by any mode whatsoever such transfer shall, for the purposes of the proceedings under this Act, be ignored and if such property is subsequently forfeited to the Central Government under section 7, then, the transfer of such property shall be deemed to be null and void. This provision will have no application in the present case as the property that was transferred by Mohammed Daha Ummal to the petitioners stood outside the ambit of the Act even to begin with.

¶188

In light of the discussion as aforesaid, W.P.Nos.7196 and 7478 of 2001 are allowed and the impugned order of the Tribunal to the extent to which it relates to the Petitioners in W.P.Nos.7196 and 7478 of 2001 is quashed. No costs.

¶189

(A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) sl 13-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶190

__________ Page15 of 17

¶191

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

¶192

WP Nos. 7196 and 7478 of 2001

¶193

¶194

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

¶195

The Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi

¶196

__________ Page16 of 17

¶197

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

¶198

WP Nos. 7196 and 7478 of 2001

¶199

DR.ANITA SUMANTH J.

AND

SUNDER MOHAN J.

WP Nos. 7196 and 7478 of 2001

¶204

13-03-2026

¶205

__________ Page17 of 17

¶206

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 31.1.2001 of the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi in FPA.Nos.70/MDS/95 and 68/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¶¶23
Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi · 31.1.2001
Prior proceeding
Writ Petitioner and other relatives of S.S.A.Sahul Hameed proceeded against; detenu held to be a 'person' under Section 2(2)(b) SAFEMA¶¶23
Prior proceeding
Petitioner is daughter of the detenu and was proceeded with as a 'person' under Section 2(2)(c) SAFEMA¶¶24
Prior proceeding
Notice under Section 6(1) issued to detenu on 09.02.1977 with annexure identifying parcels for forfeiture under Section 5, including 8 cents in S.Nos.324/1693, 1694, 1695 and 1818 ('subject property') standing in the name of detenu's wife Mohammed Daha Ummal¶¶29
Prior proceeding
Endorsement on detenu's Section 6(1) notice: copy forwarded to Smt.Mohammed Daha Ummal (wife) and Ameenathu Fathima (daughter) in terms of Section 6(2) SAFEMA¶¶30
Prior proceeding
Separate Section 6(1) notice issued to Mohammed Daha Ummal proposing forfeiture of scheduled agricultural lands (Kooriyur, Mayakulam, Erwadi); the subject property did not figure in that notice¶¶31
Prior proceeding
Show cause notices answered: (i) 1386 sq.ft. with construction settled as Sridhana on petitioner in W.P.No.7196 vide registered document No.1164 of 1978 dated 02.08.1978; (ii) 1245 sq.ft settled as Sridhana on petitioner in W.P.No.7478 vide document dated 04.07.1984¶¶36
Prior proceeding
Settlement deeds admittedly produced before the authorities; petitioner's express submission that the land devolved on her through her mother as Sridhana and could not be forfeited under SAFEMA¶¶37
Prior proceeding
Competent Authority order dated 28.04.1995 overriding the explanations, carried in appeal before the Tribunal¶¶38
Prior proceeding
Tribunal, on the preliminary ground of violation of natural justice, passed orders dated 05.05.1998 and 16.11.1999 calling for a remand report after hearing the petitioner and other legal heirs of the detenu¶¶38
Prior proceeding
Competent Authority tendered comments on 02.02.2000 after taking note of submissions; Tribunal then passed the impugned order assailed in these Writ Petitions¶¶39

S.Aysath Zulaika v. Competent Authority, Smugglers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Aysath Zulaika v. Competent Authority, Smugglers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muralidass Vs the Secretary to the Government

Latha Vs The Secretary to Government

Sandhiya Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Secretary to Government

Suo Motu Vs R. Tamil Selvan

Sheik Kamal Vs Competent Authority

Santhosh Vs State rep.by