Tahira Sultana unsuccessfully challenged the said order in proceedings for setting aside the ex parte order before the Appellate Tribunal.
Independent of these proceedings the companypetent authority also passed an order on 18th June 1987 under Section 7 2 of SAFEMA, after hearing Tahira Sultana, forfeiting the second flat purchased by her being Flat No.1, Ground Floor, shivasthan Co operative Housing Society Ltd., Bandra, Bombay.
Her writ petition was dismissed by the Bombay High Court on 21st August 1995.
1527 of 1995 before the Bombay High Court challenging the order of Appellate Tribunal passed on 18th April 1995 dismissing her application for setting aside the ex parte order of the Appellate Tribunal.
The said writ petition was moved in December 1977.
The on 05th November 1982, according to the appellants, the purchaser for the first time got information from the Society in whose building the flat was situated, about the order of forfeiture of the said flat and the undertaking given by the purchasers vendor Tahira Sultana before the Bombay High Court.
The High Court of Bombay admitted the said writ petition of Tahira Sultana on 03rd March 1978 and stayed the order of forfeiture of the said property on an undertaking by her that she would number dispose of or alienate or encumber or part with the right, title and interest in the said flat pending the final disposal of the writ petition.
In the writ petition she challenged both the order of detention of her husband as well as the order of forfeiture of the said property standing in her name.
The said writ petition was moved in December 1977.
The authorities took possession of Flat No.1, Shivasthan Society, from Tahira Sultana on 13th September 1995.
2841 of 1982 filed by the purchaser Tayab Ali on 13th December 1982 in the Bombay High Court.
Pending the remanded proceedings the purchaser Tayab Ali expired on 24th December 1986 leaving present appellants as his heirs and legal representatives.
She filed Special Leave Petition before this Court challenging the order of the Bombay High Court pertaining to Flat No.1, Shivasthan Society, Bombay.
The said application was dismissed by the Tribunal.
She accordingly filed subsequent Writ Petition No.1527 of 1995 which was rejected by the Bombay High Court on 21st August 1995.
Pursuant to the order of the High Court of Gujarat the companypetent authority functioning under SAFEMA by order dated 17th March 1987 after hearing the purchasers heirs, namely, the present appellants re confirmed the order of forfeiture of the flat purchased by their predecessor, under SAFEMA.
Tahira Sultana on her part filed Writ Petition No.100 of 1984 on the Criminal Side of Bombay High Court in 184 again challenging the detention order and order of forfeiture of property, while the appellants predecessor in interest Tayab Ali, the purchaser of the flat in question, moved the High Court of Gujarat on 12th August 1985 challenging the detention order of the COFEPOSA detenu Talab Haji Hussein which gave rise to the proceedings under SAFEMA as sell as companysequential order under SAFEMA since the order of detention was issued by the State of Gujarat.
Petition No.1680 of 1977 was withdrawn by her before the Bombay High Court with a view to challenging the appellate order companyfirming the order of forfeiture.
After hearing said Tahira Sultana the companypetent authority passed an order Section 7 of the SAFEMA on 12th October 1977 holding that the said property was illegally acquired property and, therefore, it stood forfeited to the Central Government free from all encumbrances as laid down under Section 7 3 of SAFEMA.
Simultaneously she moved the Appellate Tribunal under the SAFEMA challenging the order of forfeiture of her property.
It was dismissed by this Court on 24th November 1995.
She filed Writ Petition No.
On 15th February 1977 the companypetent authority issued a numberice under Section 6 1 of SAFEMA to the said Tahira Sultana calling upon her to show cause why the said flat purchased upon her to show cause why the said flat purchased in her name should number be forfeited as illegally acquired property of the COFEPOSA detenu, her husband, the aforesaid Talab Haji Hussein.
By amendment to her writ petition she also challenged the latter order.
In the meantime the writ petition filed by her before the Bombay High Court remained pending.
Now companyes the crucial date when the present appellants predecessor came in picture.
2,000/ on said Tahira Sultana.
When it was brought to the numberice of the Bombay High Court that purchasers vendor Tahira Sultana had companymitted breach of the undertaking given by her in her pending writ petition against the forfeiture order of the flat in Dharam Jyoti Building, the High Court initiated companytempt of companyrt proceedings against the said Tahira Sultana and by an order dated 21st February 1983 held her guilty of companytempt and imposed punishment of simple imprisonment for four weeks and a fine of Rs.
The Appellate Authority dismissed her appeal and companyfirmed the order of forfeiture by its order dated 25th July 1978.
the said writ petition was admitted on 16th December 1982 by the High Court and interim relief was granted to the purchaser.
Tahira Sultana filed appeal against the said order in companynection with forfeiture of Flat No.1, Shivasthan Society, which was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal on 02nd November 1987.
The appellants, who were brought on record as heirs of purchaser in the latters Writ Petition No, 2841 of 1982, which challenged the forfeiture of the said Flat No.25, Dharam Jyoti Building, and the direction to them to hand over possession ultimately came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay by an order dated 29th June 1995 and that is how the appellants are before us Tahira Sultanas Misc.
That resulted in a Writ Petition No.
On 20th November 1980 COFEPOSA detenu Talab Haji Hussein expired.
Therefore the forfeiture of Flat No.1, Shivasthan Society, became final upto this Court.
Before the said order of detention, the second wife of said Talab Haji Hussein, Tahira Sultana, purchased a flat being Flat No.25 in Dharam Jyoti Premises Cooperative Housing Society, Bandra, Bombay in February 1979 for a companysideration of Rs.
The Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat by its judgment dated 17th July 1986 held that the order of forfeiture of property was passed by the companypetent authority without hearing the purchaser of the property and hence the proceedings were required to be decided afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the said purchaser.
Petition No.1680 of 1977 on the Original Side of the Bombay High companyrt.
She underwent the said sentence.
As a companysequence of this order of 18th June 1987 it was directed by the companypetent authority under section 19 1 of SAFEMA that said Flat No.1, Shivasthan Society, was illegally acquired by Tahira Sultana and directed her to deliver possession thereof to the central Government authorities.
In Order to appreciate the grievance of the appellants it is necessary to numbere a few introductory facts.
By the impugned judgment the order of respondent companypetent authority forfeiting the property in question under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Forfeiture of Property Act, 1976 hereinafter referred to as SAFEMA came to be companyfirmed.
Mrs. M. Karanjawala, Adv.
Said Tahira Sultana challenged the aforesaid order of forfeiture by filing a Misc.
Introductory Facts.
The High Court of her husband as well as the order of forfeiture of the said property standing in her name.
with him for the appellants N. Shukla, Sr.
T.C.Sharma, S.Rajappa, S.N.Terdol, P. Mayee and A.M. Khanwilkar, Advs.
One Talab Haji Hussein Sumbhania was detained Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA by the Government of Gujarat by order dated 02nd April 1976.
with him for the Respondents J U D G M E N T O R D E R S The following Judgment of the Court was delivered B. Majmudar J. This appeal by special leave seeks to challenge judgment and order rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.2841 of 1982.
88,562/ .
