R.C. Lahoti,J. - (1.) By this petition under Articles226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to lay challenge to an order dated 28.4.80 passed by the Competent Authority under Section 7 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter the Act, for short), maintained in appeal by the order dated 1.8.94 passed by the Appellate Tribunal For Forfeited Property, New Delhi.
(2.) The facts in so far as relevant for the purpose of the present petition may briefly be noticed.The property forming subject matter of the impugned proceedings was as under: ANNEXURE (i) Right, title and interest pertaining to half share in House No. 1135, Chatta Madan Gopal, Maliwara, Delhi. (ii) Amounts due to Smt. Shanti Devi from : (a) Suresh Chand Rajender Kumar, 572 Katra Babu Pearcy Lal, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006. (b) Shri Ramesh Chand, 5 Hastings Lane, New Delhi. (e) Skytone Electrical (India) Manufacturer of Cables and Wires, 43. Industrial Area, Faridabad-121001 (d) M/s. Pragati Construction Co. Engineers & Contractors, VV-49, Greater Kailashi, New Delhi-11048. (e) M/s. Ganpat Rai Jagdish Narain, General Cloth Merchants & Commission Agents, Katra Marwari, Nai Sarak, Delhi-6. (f) Shri Hira Chand Jain, Delhi (iii) Credit balance in Saving Bank (S.B. Sarafa account with Union Bank of (Market, India. (Chandni Chowk, (iv) F.D.R. in Union Bank of India (Delhi.
(3.) The petitioner Shanti Devi was the wife of one Basant Lal. The marriage had taken place in the year 1945. On 30.7.75 Basant Lal was ordered to be detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to preventing him from dealing in smuggled goods viz. foreign marked smuggled gold otherwise then by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods. 3.1. On 27.9.77, the Income-tax Office, Spl.Circle-VI (Addl.), New Delhi furnished an information under Section 16(2) of the Act to the Competent Authority. By reference to the property stated hereunder the ITO communicated that the said property was illegally acquired property (as far as known to the Incom-tax Dep.tt.) within the meaning of Section 3(1 )(c)(iv) of the Act: (i) H.No. 1135, Chatte Madangopal Maliwara New Delhi. 2. Parmeshwari Dass Rs.l4,915.00 Ramrichpal Bansidhar Rs. 15,226.00 Orient Electric Co. Rs. 1,000.00 Hirachand Jain Rs.6,000.00 Ratanlal Rs. 10,000.00 3. Union Bank of India Rs. 4,683.00 cash in hand Rs. 8,72 1/ Rs. 60.546.00 It was also stated that Smt. Shanti Devi was the wife of Basant Lal and hence a relative within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 32. On 29.7.78 notice was issued by the Competent Authority to the petitioner calling upon her to indicate the sources of her income, earnings or assets out of which or by means of which the said properties could have been acquired alongwith evidence and other relevant information and particulars. The petitioner partici pa tea in the proceedings. 33. By order dated 28.4.80 the Competent Authority formed an opinion that the said properties were illegally acquired properties of Smt. Shanti Devi within the meaning of Section 3(l)(c)(i) to (iv) of the Act. The Competent Authority also expressed anopinion that the affected person had completely failed to discharge her harden which under Section 8 of the Act is cast on her. Hence the properties were forfeited to the Central Government free from all encumbrances. 3.4. As already stated the petitioner preferred an appeal which has been dismissed. ;