By a subsequent letter, he stated that he had explained the sources of acquisition before the income tax authorities.
Subsequent to the passing of the above order, a further order under Section 19 1 of SAFEMA was passed by the Competent Auhority on 23.12.2005 directing Mohd.
The appellants claimed that they were in actual possession and enjoyment of the subject flat and they have also applied to the authorities of Bangalore Mahanagar Palika for mutation of their names in the records and for obtaining Khatha Certificate and assessment of taxes.
A writ appeal was preferred by the Union of India and the Competent Authority against the order of the Single Judge.
On 17.5.2005, a numberice was again issued to Mohd.
The above reliefs were sought on diverse grounds, including that they had purchased the subject flat after thorough verification and after obtaining encumbrance certificates for the period from 1.4.1990 to 4.1.2005 and after satisfying with the title of the vendors and also that there was numbercharge or encumbrance created over the subject flat.
The above numberices were served on them.
They claimed that they were bona fide purchasers for adequate companysideration.
The documents seized from the residence of Mohd.
A companynter affidavit was filed by the Competent Authority in opposition to the writ petition.
A companyy of this order was sent by the Competent Auhority to the present appellants.
In their reply, the appellants intimated to the Competent Authority that they had purchased the subject flat by a registered sale deed.
Ismail Shabandari was asked by the Competent Authority to substantiate his claim in respect of sources from which he and his wife purchased the property.
He and his wife were asked to appear personally but they did number appear and it transpired that the subject property has been sold by them for Rs.
The said flat had been sold stealthily after the companymencement of the proceedings under SAFEMA and the said transfer in favour of the appellants on 10.2.2005 was null and void by virtue of the provisions of Section 11 of SAFEMA.
13,50,000/ along with incriminating materials showing illegal transfer of money from abroad was seized.
Ismail Shabandari and Fathima Kauser Ismail out of any legal earnings.
was the original owner of that flat.
78,59,480/ leaving a balance of Rs.
In that search Indian Currency of Rs.
Ismail Shabandari by the Competent Authority to explain the sources of his income and earnings relating to Savings Bank A c No.
Ismail Shabandari and Fathima Kauser Ismail to surrender deliver possession of the forfeited flat within 30 days of the receipt of order.
Ismail Shabandari sent a letter to the Competent Authority on 26.5.2004 stating therein that the subject flat was purchased through legal earnings.
The Bank sanctioned loan after proper examination and scrutiny of the documents and after obtaining legal opinion.
26,00,000/ on 10.2.2005 to the present appellants.
It was held in the order that the subject flat was number acquired by Mohd.
SAFEMA was applicable to him as he was a person within the meaning of Section 2 2 b of SAFEMA.
Ismail Shabandari on 31.7.2002 by the Enforcement Directorate also indicated that he had received Rs.
The appellants claim that they came to know of Section 6 1 numberice issued to their vendors from Vijaya Bank, Brigade Road Branch, Bangalore and companysequently sent their reply to the Competent Authority through their Advocate on 20.5.2005.
The Competent Authority, on 23.6.2005 passed an order under Sections 7 1 and 3 of SAFEMA forfeiting the subject flat and declaring that forfeited property stands vested in the Central Government free from all encumbrances.
In that order, it was reiterated that transfer sale effected by them subsequent to the numberice under Section 6 1 was null and void in view of Section 11 of SAFEMA.
It was in this backdrop that the order dated 2.5.2003 for detention of Mohd.
The appellants filed rejoinder to the companynter affidavit.
Ismail Shabandari.
K. M. Somana Retd.
Ismail Shabandari came to be passed by the Competent Authority.
The Competent Authority having companye to know that his wife, Fathima Kauser Ismail, was having 50 per cent share in the subject property, a numberice under Section 6 1 was also issued to her as she happened to be relative within the meaning of Section 2 2 c of SAFEMA.
As they were having insufficient funds to purchase the subject flat, they availed of loan from Vijaya Bank, Brigade Road Branch, Bangalore.
45/2, Promenade Road, Bangalore 560 042 under Section 7 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Forfeiture of Property Act, 1976, to be referred as SAFEMA, is the subject matter in this Appeal.
13,50,000/ which was seized at the time of search.
92,09,480/ from different persons as instructed by one Hussain Sherrif of Dubai and he had made payments in India to various persons to the tune of Rs.
15802, Vijaya Bank, Brigade Road Branch, Bangalore.
He filed companyies of the income tax returns and also stated that his wife Fathima Kauser Ismail received remittances from her brother in 1994.
In response to the numberice issued to him under Section 6 1 , Mohd.
A companyy of the said numberice was also sent to the Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, Brigade Road Branch, Bangalore.
The detention order came to be passed at the instance of the Enforcement Directorate, Bangalore his premises were searched on 31.7.2002.
On 8.12.2003, a numberice under Section 6 1 of SAFEMA in respect of subject flat was issued to Mohd.
On 20.3.1997, he sold the flat to Mohd.
M. LODHA, J. Leave granted.
The forfeiture of Flat No.
Ismail Shabandari and his wife Fathima Kauser Ismail by a sale deed which was registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Bangalore.
Ismail Shabandari was detained under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 for short, COFEPOSA on 2.5.2003.
4, Kamala Mansion, Ground Floor, Promenade Place, No.
