IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 OP.No. 18119 of 1998(F) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. KUNJACHI, W/O.THARAKKAD ABOOBACKER, NO.CC-5/1396, MATTANCHERRY BLOCK, MATTANCHERRY VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, KOCHI. 2. KUMARI NABEESA, D/O.KUNJACHI, -DO- BY ADV. SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, SMUGGLERS & FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANIPULATORS (FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY) ACT, 1976 & NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985, 'UTSAV', NO.64/1, G.N.CHETTY ROAD, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI-17. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOCHI. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.No. 18119/98. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE SALE DEED DTD.5.11.84. P2. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.26.4.96. P3. COPY OF THE EXPLANATION TO Ext.P2. P4. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.5.6.96. P5. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.10.9.96. P6. COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DTD.1.10.96. P7. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD.17.1.97. P8. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.AUGUST, 1998. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 18119 of 1998 ================== Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners purchased 5.25 cents of land including a building standing thereon in Survey Nos.167/1 of Mattancherry Village, by virtue of sale deed dated 5.11.1984 executed by one A.A.Kunju. The petitioners have been directed by the 1st respondent to surrender the property on the ground that the property has been forfeited to the Government of India pursuant to proceedings initiated against the said A.A.Kunju under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (“the Act”). Despite the objections filed by the petitioners, by Ext.P7, the 1st respondent has rejected the explanation of the petitioners on the ground that under Section 11 of the Act, any transfer by any mode whatsoever, of any property put to notice for forfeiture under the said Act shall be ignored and the transfer of the property shall be deemed to be null and void. Although the legal heirs of A.A.Kunju, who is no more, filed appeal before the Tribunal, it did not bear any fruit. Again, by Ext.P8 order, the 1st respondent has directed the legal heirs of A.A.Kunju to surrender the property in question. The petitioners are challenging Exts.P7 and P8 orders in this original petition. 2. I have heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General also. o.p.18119/98 2 3. Section 11 of the Act reads thus: “11. 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.” 4. In this case, notice under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued to Sri.A.A.Kunju on 29.4.1978, much before the purchase of the property by the petitioners. Therefore, the provisions of Section 11 are squarely attracted in this case. In view of the said Section, even if the petitioners are bonafide purchasers of the land, once the property is forfeited to the Government, the petitioners cannot contend that since they have bonafide purchased for consideration, the same cannot be taken from them. In the above circumstances, this original petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================= O.P.No. 18119 of 1998-F ================= J U D G M E N T 17th February, 2009