IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 OP.No. 12917 of 2002(K) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- LAKSHMANAN PILLAI, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. CHELLAKANNU PILLAI, SAYI BHAVAN, PADMA NAGAR, INSIDE FORT, PAZHAVANGADI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 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. 4. S. MUTHUSWAMY, S/O. SUBRAMONIAN ACHARY T.C.39/1599, LAKSHMI BHAVAN, KURIYATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, SCGSC FOR R1,2 SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY FOR R4 SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, SCGSC FOR R1,2 SSRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. SOL. GENERAL. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2009, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 12917/02. -------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE. EXT.P2 SALE DEED DT. 5-9-1981. EXT.P3 TAX RECEIPT DT. 28-12-2001. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: --------------------------------------- EXT.R2(a) TRUE COPY OF NOTICE. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 12917 of 2002 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 26th 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 he is a bona fide purchaser of the property, unaware of the proceedings under the Act, he cannot be penalised for the action of his 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.” 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 he was a bona fide purchaser, the property O.P. No.12917/2002 -: 2 :- cannot be forfeited. The issue is also covered by the decision in Aamenabai's case. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the original petition. Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/