Skip to main content

SC: Govt can seize land if source of funding hidden

Dealing a blow to the practice of investing unaccounted and ill-gotten money in real estate, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government would be justified to deprive a person of his property if he cannot explain the legitimate source of funds to acquire it.

"If a subject acquires property by means which are not legally approved, sovereign would be perfectly justified to deprive such persons of the enjoyment of such ill-gotten wealth. There is public interest in ensuring that persons who cannot establish that they have legitimate sources to acquire the assets held by them do not enjoy such wealth," a bench of Justices H L Gokhale and J Chelameswar said.

Before arriving at this conclusion that could send a chill down the spine of real estate mafia and those acquiring benami property, the bench studied the provisions to deal with this contentious issue in several countries.

The question before the bench was whether a person, who had been acquitted from the charge of acquiring illegal money, could be punished again by depriving him of the property that was bought using that unaccounted money under Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act (Safema), 1976?

The bench differentiated between the civil nature of forfeiture prescribed under Safema from the criminal case for acquiring illegal wealth or money and said it could not be treated as double jeopardy, banned under Article 20 of the Constitution which bars prosecution of a person more than once for the same offence.

Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Chelameswar said, "The conviction or preventive detention contemplated under Section 2 is not the basis or cause of the confiscation but the factual basis for a rebuttable presumption to enable the state to initiate proceedings to examine whether the properties held by such persons are illegally acquired properties.

"It is notorious that people carrying on activities such as smuggling to make money are very clandestine in their activity. Direct proof is difficult, if not impossible. The nature of the activity and the harm it does to the community provide a sufficiently rational basis for the legislature to make such an assumption (about illegal funds being used to acquire property).

"Even in the case of such persons, the Act does not mandate such an enquiry against all the assets of such persons. An enquiry is limited to such assets which the competent authority believes (to start with) are beyond the financial ability of the holder having regard to his known and legitimate sources of income, earnings etc. Connection with the conviction is too remote and, therefore, in our opinion, would not be hit by the prohibition contained under Article 20 of the Constitution."

The bench said non-conviction based asset forfeiture model, also known as Civil Forfeiture Legislation, had gained currency in the US, Italy, Ireland, South Africa, the UK, Australia and certain provinces of Canada.

The judgment came in a case where one Bishwanath Bhattacharya was detained under Cofeposa for illegally dealing with foreign exchange in 1977 and during the period of detention was served notice under Safema to explain the source of money to acquire two properties in Salt Lake area of Kolkata and the investment in Bijaya Publishing House. The authorities had ordered forfeiture of these two properties and investment in the publishing house. SC upheld the action of forfeiture.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-Govt-can-seize-land-if-source-of-funding-hidden/articleshow/29226393.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...