Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 44 (RAJ)

Abdul Mazid Khan v. Union of India

2002-01-08

H.R.PANWAR

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 30.7.1999, by virtue of which, a property belonging to Quayoom Khan has been ordered to be forfeited under Section 68-1(1) and (3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1985'). The said Quayoom Khan was tried under the Act of 1985 and also detained under the orders of the appropriate authority and thus in law the properties held by him were liable to be forfeited by the Central Government under the provisions of Section 68-C of the Act, 1985. The respondent Department made enquiries from the Income Tax Department and the Intelligence officer, Narcotic Control Bureau. Jodhpur. On enquiries, it was found that respondent No. 5 Quayoom Khan is the owner of the property known as G-6, Ashok Nagar (Jawahar Nagar), Pratapgarh District Chittorgarh. On 18.11.1989, a lease was executed in favour of respondent No. 6 Nizammudin by the Municipal Board. Pratapgarh. This purchase was made by respondent No. 6 in the year 1985. 2. The respondent No. 6 is alleged to have transferred this property to respondent No. 7 Abdul Rashid by an agreement which is unregistered and only attested by Notary on 5th September, 1988. The petitioner is alleged to have purchased this property on 10.6.1997 by a registered deed from respondent No. 7. This is how the petitioner claims that property belongs to him. Respondent No. 7 has nothing to do with the property. 3. The respondent Authorities took steps under the Act of 1985 for the forfeiture of the said property. According to the Competent Authority under SAFEMA & NDPSA, New Delhi, the property belongs to Quayoom Khan who had purchased it from Nizammudin. The Income Tax Authorities confirmed that House No. G-6, Ashok Nagar, Pratapgarh was purchased by Quayoom Khan in the year 1985 from Nizammudin. 4. In the statement recorded under the Act of 1985, Quayoom Khan has admitted that house belongs to him. This house was completed and constructed by Quayoom Khan and after completion, the same was given on rent to one Khem Raj Singh Solanki who was Dy. Conservator of Forests, Government of Rajasthan. The statement of Khem Raj Singh Solanki was also recorded under the Act of 1985. Mr. This house was completed and constructed by Quayoom Khan and after completion, the same was given on rent to one Khem Raj Singh Solanki who was Dy. Conservator of Forests, Government of Rajasthan. The statement of Khem Raj Singh Solanki was also recorded under the Act of 1985. Mr. Khem Raj Singh also admitted in his statement that house situated at G-6, Ashok Nagar, Pratapgarh where he was residing belongs to Quayoom Khan. Consequently, the Intelligence officer exercising his power under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act passed a freezing order on 12.7.1993 bearing No. F.No. VIII (12)3/NCB/JZU/92-1263. 5. This order had the effect of making the property, once subjected to the proceedings, which may be ultimately taken for the forfeiture of this property. Thus. after 12.7.1993, the property got freezed under Section 68-F of the Act of 1985. A show cause notice was issued to Quayoom Khan who did not receive the notice. The same was sent to him on various occasions by various modes. Ultimately, a request for adjournment was made by Quayoom Khan on 12.7.1999. Thereafter, Quayoom Khan did not appear and the proceedings were therefore decided due to non-co-operation of Quayoom Khan. 6. In deciding the question, the Authority has considered the statement of Nizammudin and Quayoom Khan wherein Nizammudin has admitted that he has sold property to Quayoom Khan. Quayoom Khan has admitted to have owned and possessed the house. He has also admitted to have rented out the same to one Shri Khem Raj Singh Solanki. Statement of Khem Raj Singh Solanki was also relied. It was held by the Competent Authority that the property belongs to Quayoom Khan and was liable to be forefeited to the Government. 7. The case of the present petitioner in appeal was that the property in question was sold to him by a registered sale deed by Nizammudin on 10.6.1997. This property is held by him. No notice has been given to him before the order of forfeiture is passed and therefore the order is vitiated. The petitioner being a party was entitled to the hearing by the competent authority. 8. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 7 has sold this property by a registered sale deed. This property is held by him. No notice has been given to him before the order of forfeiture is passed and therefore the order is vitiated. The petitioner being a party was entitled to the hearing by the competent authority. 8. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 7 has sold this property by a registered sale deed. Though detenue and Nizammudin had earlier submitted before the Authority that property belongs to Quayoom Khan but they have filed affidavits and according to those affidavits, property belongs to the petitioner. Thus, the property in question is not liable to be forfeited. 9. I have Considered the submissions of teamed counsel for the petitioner. 10. A freezing order had been passed regarding the property by the competent authority on 12.7.1993. Thus, any sale after this date was not possible because the property was not available for being sold as the property was a seized property under the Act of 1985. The alleged sale in favour of the petitioner in the year 1997. In 1997, no sale of the property in question, could be made. 11. Respondent No. 7 Abdul Rashid is alleged to have executed registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. He cannot be said to be the owner of the property. Abdul Rashid is alleged to have been assigned the property by a notarised document. An immoveable property can only be transferred by a registered document. No such document was ever executed in favour of Abdul Rashid, therefore, Abdul Rashid cannot have the power to transfer the property. By a document executed by Abdul Rashid, no title passes on to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner cannot be said to be possessed by any title in his favour. In any case, after passing of the freezing order on 12.7.1993, the property was not liable to be transferred at all. Any transfer claimed thereafter was of no consequence. In this background, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition having no force is dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******