IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 OP.No. 13751 of 2002(K) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.INDIRA AMMA, AGED 62 YEARS, D/O.KARTHIYANI PILLAI,SANKARAMANGALAM VEEDU, PERUNTHANNI WARD,PALLULANGARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.K.L.NARASIMHAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF FINANCE,DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,NEW DELHI. 2. COMPETENT AUTHORITY, SMUGGLERS AND FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANIPULATORS (FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY)ACT 1976,UTSAV,NO.64/1,G.N.CHETTY ROAD,T.NAGAR,CHENNAI 600 017 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER,VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. S.MUTHUSWAMY S/O.SUBRAMONIAN ACHARY, T.C.39/1599,LAKSHMI BHAVAN,KURIYATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY MR. P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.S.G, R3 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR, R5 BY ADV. MR. SHAJI P.CHALY. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 13751/2002-K: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DTD. 01/12/1994. P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO THE R.5. DTD. 10/01/1995. P3: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3303/1980 OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 06/10/1980. P4: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF TAX REMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 22/05/2002. P5: COPY OF THE MORTGAGE DEED EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND HER HUSBAND DTD. 20/03/1981. P6: COPY OF THE TITLE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER DTD. 31/12/1980. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: R2.A: COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S.6(1) OF THE SMUGGLERS 7 FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANIPULATORS (FORREITURE OF PROPERTY) ACT, 1976 DT. 07/03/80. R2.B: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. OCA/MDS/2111/80 DT. 10/06/1993 OF THE GOVT. OF INDIA. R2.C: COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 26/08/1993 NO.OCA/MDS/211/80 ISSUED BY THE INSPECTING OFFICER, SAFEMFOPA & NDPS ACT, MADRAS-17. R2.D: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F.NO.OCA/MDS/2111/80 DT. 03/10/2001 ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY SFEMFP ACT, 1976. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 13751 of 2002 ================== Dated this the 31st day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be a bona fide purchaser of a property, in respect of which, notice under Section 6(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, was issued. The petitioner's contention is that since she is a bona fide purchaser of the property, unaware of the proceedings under the Act, she cannot be penalised for the action of her vendor. 2. Learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that the purchase by the petitioner was after the issue of notice under Section 6(1) of the Act. It is pointed out that under Section 11 of the Act, such transfers are void. The Assistant Solicitor General also relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Aamenabai Tayebaly & others v. Competent Authority under SAFEMA & others, AIR 1998 SC 484. 3. I have heard both sides. 4. Admittedly, the purchase was after issue of Section 6(1) notice. Section 11 of the Act reads thus: “CERTAIN TRANSFERS TO BE NULL AND VOID:- Where after the issue of a notice under Sec. 6 or Sec. 10, any property referred to in the said notice is transferred by any mode whatsoever such transfer shall, for the purpose of the proceedings under this Act, be ignored and if such property is subsequently forfeited to the Central Government under Sec. 7, then the transfer of such property shall be deemed to be null and void.” o.p.13751/02 2 Going by Section 11, any transfer of property by any mode whatsoever after the issue of a notice under Section 6 of the Act is to be ignored and if the property is subsequently forfeited to Central Government under Section 7, transfer of such property shall be deemed to be null and void. In view of such provision, the petitioner cannot contend that since she was a bona fide purchaser, the property cannot be forfeited. The issue is also covered by the decision in Aamenabai's case (supra). In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the original petition. Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 13751 of 2002-K ================== J U D G M E N T 31st March, 2009