JUDGMENT 1. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner submits that her husband, K.M. Basheer Ahmed was carrying on business for almost four decades. She submits that her husband, after having some experience by working under his uncle, started business as a commission agent in respect of automobiles and later in respect of properties. He earned taxable income by about 1963 and filed returns of income voluntarily for the assessment years 1963-64 to 1967-68 sometime in 1967. An average annual income of about Rs.10,000/- was declared for the aforesaid years and tax for the income declared was also paid. During the year 196768, he entered into a partnership with three other persons to establish a business in timber trading under the name and style of "Kerala Timer Trading Company" and the firm was established in Kasergode. Since, he had established reasonable business contacts, by the year 1967, he was able to obtain bank borrowings as well as certain other borrowals to acquire three lorries during the year 1967-68. In spite of the aforesaid business, he had derived an income of Rs.26,300/- for the assessment year 1968-69. The petitioner submits that the above firm of Kerala Timber Trading Company was dissolved in the year 1968 and he started another partnership firm in the name and style of "New Kerala Timber Trading Company" along with some other persons. He continued his operations in lorry services also and he had an income of approximately Rs.15,000/- from the lorry business while his share of income from the new firm was a similar sum. He retired from the firm of New Kerala Timber Trading Company sometime towards the later part of 1969. At the time of retirement, he was paid a sum of Rs.1,06,300/- towards his share of capital and accumulated profit in the firm. The petitioner submits that in September 1969, her husband entered into a partnership with another person to carry on timber trading and the business of PWD contracts under the name and style of 'K.M. Basheer & Co." He had introduced a capital of Rs.1,48,000/- in the firm while the other partner introduced a capital of Rs.30,000/- . 2. The petitioner submits that in September 1969, her husband entered into a partnership with another person to carry on timber trading and the business of PWD contracts under the name and style of 'K.M. Basheer & Co." He had introduced a capital of Rs.1,48,000/- in the firm while the other partner introduced a capital of Rs.30,000/- . 2. It was submitted that in the course of assessment for the year 1970-71, her husband was called upon by the income tax officer to explain the source of his investment and other funds, which he did and his explanations were accepted and assessment was completed. All the funds, properties, incomes and investments have been duly accounted and were properly explained in the course of assessment proceedings. The various firms were also registered under the Income Tax Act. 3. The petitioner submits that neither she nor her husband was involved in any business relating to or involving the Customs or Central Excise Act or the FERA. While this was so, in the year 1972, a few bales of yarn were found in a godown which belonged to M/s. Patel Volkart, a reputed company. The godown was alleged to have been taken on rent by one K.A. Ahmed. It was alleged that one Husain had made a deposition to the effect that Ahmed had introduced him to Patel Volkart and that the petitioner's husband had an interest in the transaction. It was submitted that apart from the aforesaid alleged statement, there was nothing to indicate that the petitioner's husband had any connection with the aforesaid transaction. Despite his persistent assurances that he was not in any way concerned or connected with the said transaction, he was detained under the COFEPOSA on the basis of the above transaction. It was submitted that the petitioner's husband could not challenge the detention as it was emergency period and that he was released from detention immediately after lifting of the emergency. It was submitted that on the basis of the above detention of her husband under the COFEPOSA, her husband was considered to be a 'person' under the provision of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). It was submitted that on the basis of the above detention of her husband under the COFEPOSA, her husband was considered to be a 'person' under the provision of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). pursuant to the above position, the second respondent issued a notice to her husband on the 27th November 1976 stating that he has, on the basis of relevant information available to him, reason to believe that the properties set out in the annexure to the statement, held by her husband or his behalf, are illegally acquired properties. Within the meaning of Clause (i) of Sub Section (c) of Section 3 of the Act. It was submitted that the petitioner's husband was hence required to indicate within 35 days of the receipt of the notice, sources of his income earnings or funds out of which or by means of which, he had acquired the aforesaid properties. He was also required to indicate the evidence on which he relied on and other relevant information and particulars and to show cause why the properties should not be declared to be illegally acquired property and forfeited to the Central Government under the Act. 4. The petitioner submits that the second respondent also sent a notice dated 27.11.1976 to her stating that on the basis of relevant information and relevant materials available to him, he had reason to believe that the property comprising the International Tourist Home, Railway Station Road, Calicut-2, valued at Rs.7,00,000/- held by her or on her behalf, was illegally acquired property within the meaning of Clause (i) of Sub Section (c) of Section 3 of the Act and that she was required to indicate the source of her income earnings or assets out of which or by means of which she had acquired the aforesaid property and to show cause why the said property should not be declared to be illegally acquired property and forfeited to Central Government. It was stated in the notice that the returns filed by her for the years 1960-70 to 1972-73, admitting income from money lending business, were not supported by any details such as interests received, capital invested, source of capital, details of money lending advance etc., and that the returns were accepted and the assessments completed presumably under small income scheme, without making any detailed enquiry by the income-tax officer. The petitioner submits that the income tax officer had clearly stated that the assessment was made pursuant to an enquiry made by him under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act and as such, the statement in the reasons recorded that the assessments were made without an enquiry was factually incorrect. 5. It was submitted that in the notice sent to her, it had been alleged that on perusal of files, the second respondent had noticed an application under Section 230A of the Income Tax Act, which showed that the property was gifted to her by her mother. On 20th March 1972 and the market value thereof was estimated at Rs.25,000/- and that the petitioner had not explained in the income-tax assessment recorded as to how her mother acquired the property in question. The petitioner submits that it is not the department's case that she had provided the funds to her mother for the purchase of property. It was further noticed in the reasons recorded that she had demolished the building during 1974 and had commenced the construction on the property of a building known as, "International Tourist Home". The investment made by her till 31st March 1975 in the said building was worked out at Rs.6,80,000/- . It was also noticed that in respect of the aforesaid investment of Rs.6,80,000/- , she had availed a loan of Rs.3,60,000/- from the Kerala Financial Corporation. It was noticed that till 31st March 1975, she had taken a loan from her husband to the extent of Rs.85,000/- for the building and that the balance amount of Rs.2,35,000/- had not been explained. It was submitted that on the above facts, the first respondent had noticed that a substantial portion of the money invested by her in the construction of the property was out of the unexplained funds, and that even the sum of Rs.85,000/- advanced by her husband was treated as given out of his unexplained funds. It was submitted that on the above facts, the first respondent had noticed that a substantial portion of the money invested by her in the construction of the property was out of the unexplained funds, and that even the sum of Rs.85,000/- advanced by her husband was treated as given out of his unexplained funds. The petitioner further submits that the reasons recorded only state that a substantial portion of the funds utilized for the construction is out of unexplained source and not from illegal source. The petitioner submits that in so far as the reasons recorded had not stated that the source for the funds is illegal, but had only stated that the source is not explained, there is no justification for the issue of the aforesaid notice. 6. It was submitted that the second respondent also referred to a note book seized by the income tax authorities from the premises of international tourists home, wherein it was shown that she had received a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- from her husband as against the total cost of construction of Rs.6,80,000/- . It was submitted that the second respondent had admitted that the balance of Rs.3,60,000/- was received as a loan from Kerala Financial corporation and thus, on the basis of materials available with the first respondent, more than 50% of the cost of construction was admittedly from a legal source viz., loan from Kerala Financial Corporation and as such, there is no justification to forfeit the property absolutely. 7. The petitioner states that immediately on receipt of the above notice dated 27.11.1976, she submitted a detailed reply on 26.01.1977 explaining the source for the acquisition of the aforesaid property wherein she had explained that for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1974-75, she had declared an income of Rs.76,000/- and that she had taken a loan of Rs.3,62,000/- from the Kerala Financial Corporation in the year 1972 and that she had also received further loans from her husband and diverted the entire money lending capital to the above construction. She had also explained that the land on which the construction was made was gifted to her by her mother. She had sought an opportunity to adduce evidence of materials in support of her contentions that the property is not illegally acquired. 8. She had also explained that the land on which the construction was made was gifted to her by her mother. She had sought an opportunity to adduce evidence of materials in support of her contentions that the property is not illegally acquired. 8. Thereafter, the petitioner had appeared before the inspecting officer under the second respondent on various occasions through her representative and produced evidence in respect of her explanation. All the details called for by the Inspecting Officer were furnished by her. She had also produced before the Inspecting Officer, the certificate for the loan taken from the Kerala Financial Corporation and title deeds for the purchase of property by her mother as well as the gift of the property to her. She further produced before the first respondent, evidence regarding the source of her money lending business, copy of her bank accounts and evidence regarding the gifts received by her at the time of her marriage. She also produced complete income tax assessments and income tax records which clearly showed the source of her income, properties and assets. Subsequently, it was only in November 1979, that the first respondent took up the case for hearing and again called for various particulars and the same was furnished. Thereafter, there was no response from the competent authority, i.e., the second respondent till February 1989, when again he called for further details. These details were submitted by her. Even thereafter, no action was taken by the second respondent in the matter of finalizing the aforesaid proceedings. Hence, the petitioner submitted a detailed letter to the second respondent on 2nd of August 1993, again explaining the entire position including the source of the funds for the investments made by her. 9. It was submitted that after the aforesaid letter was issued by her on 2nd August 1993, she did not hear from the second respondent till January 1995, when he made on order under Section 7(1) of the Act, forfeiting the property "International Tourist Home" to the Central Government free from all encumbrances. The aforesaid order stated that the valuation officer under the income tax department had estimated the value of building as on 31.03.1979 at Rs.10.02 lakhs. This had been as the basis for the aforesaid proceedings. The aforesaid order stated that the valuation officer under the income tax department had estimated the value of building as on 31.03.1979 at Rs.10.02 lakhs. This had been as the basis for the aforesaid proceedings. The competent authority stated that in view of the aforesaid valuation, the cost of construction of the property as on 31.03.1979 would be taken as the valuation fixed by the valuation officer. Though the competent authority admitted that the construction of the building had taken place as early as 1972 and substantial amount had been spent for the construction upto 1974, he arbitrarily adopted in the estimated valuation as on 30.03.1979 as the cost of construction for determining whether the investment was legal or illegal. It was submitted that the very basis of the order under Section 7(1) of the Act was erroneous, illegal and arbitrary and that the competent authority had erroneously concluded that the property is illegally acquired and ordered the forfeiture of her property. 10. The petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order before the first respondent, the appellate Tribunal for forfeited property in terms of the provisions of the Act. The above appeal was numbered as 9/Mds/95, and was taken up for hearing by the appellate Tribunal for forfeited property, the first respondent herein at its camp at Hyderabad and the appellate Tribunal, by order dated 4th September 1997, dispatched on 27th September 1997, confirmed the order of the competent authority as well as the forfeiture of the property. The first respondent disposed of her appeal along with an appeal filed by her husband against the order forfeiting various properties held by him. In the order of the first respondent, it noticed that her property had been valued as on 31.03.1979 at Rs.10,02,000/- as against Rs.9,97,280/- claimed by her as cost of construction. The notice in respect of the above property was used on 27th November 1976 on which date, she was called upon to explain the nature of investment as on that date amounting to Rs.7,00,000/- . Subsequent to the 27th November 1976, there has been no notice under Section 6 and she was also not called upon to explain the investments on the construction, other than the initial investment. Subsequent to the 27th November 1976, there has been no notice under Section 6 and she was also not called upon to explain the investments on the construction, other than the initial investment. The first respondent made it clear in the aforesaid order that they were dealing with the property as if the investment thereon is to the extent of Rs.10,00,000/- and not Rs.7,00,000/- as set out in the notice under Section 6 of the Act. The petitioner states that she submitted before the first respondent that the site on which the building was constructed was gifted to her by her mother and this was evidenced by proper documents. She further submitted that her mother is neither "a person" within the provisions of the Act nor had any proceedings been initiated against her under the Act. The petitioner submits that neither she nor her mother is bound to explain the nature of the source of investments acquired by her. The documents clearly show that the property was purchased by her mother and was gifted to the petitioner. Consequently, the site which was purchased by her mother in 1972 for Rs.25,000/- cannot and could not have fallen under the purview of the Act nor is it liable to be forfeited. While this is so, the first respondent erroneously concluded that her mother had not let in evidence for the source of purchase of the property. The petitioner submits that no notice had been issued to her mother calling upon her to explain the source for the purchase of the property. Thus, the first respondent erroneously continued the view taken by the second respondent that her mother had not explained the source for the purchase of the property and consequently, notwithstanding that the said property was received by her by way of gift from her mother, held that the said property is liable to be forfeited. It was submitted that the order of the first respondent confirming the order of the second respondent is totally without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed as being erroneous, opposed to law and facts and totally without jurisdiction vitiated by non-application of mind to the relevant facts and the legal position. 11. The petitioner submits that in respect of the source for the construction, she had explained that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was available with her consequent on stopping of all her money lending business. 11. The petitioner submits that in respect of the source for the construction, she had explained that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was available with her consequent on stopping of all her money lending business. The Income Tax assessment orders clearly showed that she had carried on money lending business. This amount of Rs.50,000/- was not accepted by the second respondent, but the first respondent reversed the findings of the second respondent and accepted the contention that the sum of Rs.50,000/- was available for investment in the construction. She had also explained that she had taken a loan of Rs.91,000/- from M/s. Basheer & Co., which was a partnership firm. The first respondent had concluded that the investment of her husband in the said firm was not properly explained and consequently, he held the sum as tainted money. There was, however, no such finding with regard to the investment by the other partner. The first respondent had taken the view in her husband's appeal that his investment in the firm of Basheer and Company was tainted. Following this view and without any further discussion and without even giving her an opportunity in regard to this finding of the first respondent in her husband's case, the first respondent concluded that the loan of Rs.91,000/- taken by her from Basheer & Co., constituted tainted money. She had also explained that she had obtained a loan of Rs.2,35,000/- from her husband Basheer Ahmed. This was the amount of loan outstanding as on 31.03.1979. The award outstanding as on the date of issue of notice was much less. The first respondent erroneously stated that there was some discrepancy in regard to the explanation regarding amount advanced by her husband. the first respondent relied heavily on its findings in the appeal filed by her husband. The first respondent found that her husband had advanced a sum of Rs.85,000/- only upto 1973-74 and that a further sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded in 1974-75, a sum of Rs.18,000/- was awarded in 1976-77, Rs.33,000/- in 1977-78 and Rs.89,500/- in 1978-79. On the basis of this finding of the second respondent, which was confirmed by the first respondent, the first respondent concluded that her husband had advanced to her a sum of Rs.2,35,000/- and that is the amount represented as tainted money. On the basis of this finding of the second respondent, which was confirmed by the first respondent, the first respondent concluded that her husband had advanced to her a sum of Rs.2,35,000/- and that is the amount represented as tainted money. The petitioner states that at no point of time was an opportunity given to her in regard to the above finding of the first and second respondents. The first respondent had made the above finding in its order dated 4th September 1997 which was a combined order passed in her appeal as well as the appeals filed by her husband. The findings arrived at by them in her husband's case, which were never put to her at any earlier stage of proceedings, was straight away adopted in her case. Even this finding clearly shows that substantial portion of the aforesaid advance of Rs.2,35,000/- was made subsequent to the notice under Section 6. There was no further notice with regard to the further investments and consequently, no order can be made in respect of any asset not covered by the notice under Section 6. Consequently, even assuming without conceding that the finding of the first and second respondents in regard to the aforesaid advance is correct, in so far as the advance in excess of Rs.95,000/- was made even according to them, subsequent to the issue of the notice under Section 6 and hence it cannot from the basis of an order under Section 7 and consequently, the forfeiture in respect of the said investment is opposed to law and without jurisdiction. notwithstanding this position, the first respondent concluded that she had received a loan of Rs.2,35,000/- which was invested in the property and that the said amount constituted tainted money for the reason that the investment by her husband in the firm was considered to be tainted. It is however relevant to mention that even assuming, without conceding that there was a finding that the investment by her husband in the firm was tainted, there was no finding that the entire assets of the firm, in which her husband was only a partner, was in any manner tainted. The petitioner submits that as she had taken the loan from the firm and hence, even assuming without conceding that the investment by her husband was tainted, the loan received by her from the first cannot be treated as falsified. The petitioner submits that as she had taken the loan from the firm and hence, even assuming without conceding that the investment by her husband was tainted, the loan received by her from the first cannot be treated as falsified. The first respondent accepted her contention that the loan from Kerala Financial Corporation amounting to Rs.3,62,000/- and the scale of scrap amounting to Rs.15,000/- as genuine and represented legal source. However, she had taken a loan of Rs.25,000/- from one Ahmed Hazi and she had furnished full particulars with regard to the said loan. The second respondent had rejected her submissions arbitrarily and the first respondent confirmed the finding of the second respondent with a one line order. Thus the first respondent had concluded that she had explained the total sum of Rs.4,41,184/- out of total investments in the property. The value of the property should have been taken including the value of the land and the cost of construction. In spite of doing so, the first respondent confirmed that the site was illegally acquired property. With regard to building, the first respondent took the estimated value as on 31st March 1979 at Rs.10,02,000/- and held that the amount invested from source, which according to the first respondent, she was not able to explain, exceeded 50% of the investment as on 31.03.1979 and confirmed the forfeiture of property and declined to grant her the option of fine in lieu of forfeiture. The petitioner submits that the order of the first and second respondents are wholly opposed to law, totally erroneous, and without jurisdiction and is violative of the provisions of the Act and principles of natural justice and hence, it was prayed to quash the same. 12. The learned counsel for the second respondent, in his written submission has submitted that Shri K.M. Basheer Ahmed, Kasargode had suffered detention under the provisions of COFEPOSA, 1974 and Smt. K.M. Katheeja (hereinafter referred as writ petitioner) is the wife of the said Shri. K.M. Basheer Ahamed. Accordingly, she is attracted as a 'person' (relative in terms of Section 2(2)(c) of Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. It was submitted that investigations revealed that the said writ petitioner was found in possession of one immovable property which is believed to have been acquired out of the illegal sources. Accordingly, she is attracted as a 'person' (relative in terms of Section 2(2)(c) of Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. It was submitted that investigations revealed that the said writ petitioner was found in possession of one immovable property which is believed to have been acquired out of the illegal sources. Accordingly, a forfeiture notice dated 27.11.1976 was issued under Section 6(1) of the Act, proposing forfeiture of the property contained therein. After considering the explanations tendered by the said writ petitioner, the second respondent (i.e, competent authority) SAFEM(FOP) A & NDPS Act, Chennai) passed an order Section 7(1) of the Act, forfeiting the same as it was treated as illegally acquired. Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for forfeited property, New Delhi, (the first respondent herein) who vide their orders in FPA No.10/MDS/95 and FPA No.9/MDS/95 dated 04.09.1997 confirmed the order passed by the second respondent. Consequent to the above, the writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court to issue a writ of certiorari, call for the records in F.P.A.No.9/MDS/95, dated 04.09.1997, confirming the order of the second respondent in OCA/MDS/208/76, dated 31.10.1994 and quash the same and to stay the operation of orders of the second respondent in the said proceedings. As the writ petitioner's claim have been considered by the original and the appellate authorities, on merits, the only purpose of filing the writ petition is only to protract the issue and to retain the assets with herself and try to enjoy the benefit of possession of property for perpetuity which is respectfully submitted as not in the longer interest of state. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has submitted that the order of forfeiture passed in the case of the husband deals with these matters. It is submitted that the acceptance by the income tax officer is with regard to the availability of sources and not to the extent of the legality of the sources, which is a matter not coming under the purview of the Income Tax Act, but under the purview of SAFEM(FO) Act only. Hence, the Income Tax Authority could not have declared the legitimacy of the sources, which is not coming under the purview of the Income Tax Act. Hence, the Income Tax Authority could not have declared the legitimacy of the sources, which is not coming under the purview of the Income Tax Act. Hence, there could not have been a finding nor does it exist in the Income Tax Assessments with regard to the legality of the sources for the acquisition of the properties. This ground is misconceived and misdirected and is against the provisions of Section 21 of SAFEMA, which is reported for the sake of convenience as under:- "21. Findings under other laws not conclusive for proceedings under this Act -No finding of any officer or authority under any other law shall be conclusive for the purpose of any proceedings under this Act." 14. It was submitted that the statements in the reasons recorded and the conclusions / findings were made after proper enquiry as per the provisions of SAFEMA Act and rules made therein. It was submitted that even in the affidavit filed, no averment is made that such details were furnished before the Income-Tax authority. 15. It was submitted that in respect of the sources for acquisition of the property, it is not only with regard to the acquisition of the land that the sources are to be proved but also the superstructure thereon which was under construction. The petitioner claims that her mother gifted the land to her in the year 1972 and that it was originally purchased for Rs.25,000/- . It was submitted that the human probability of the illegally acquired income of the petitioner's husband being utilized for the purchase of the land originally in the mother's name and getting the same to her cannot be ruled out. It was submitted that no concrete evidence was let in by the petitioner to prove the genuineness of the sources of funds for the purchase of land by mother. It was submitted that even under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, it is obligatory for the assessee to explain the genuineness of the transaction (gift) failing which it will be brought to tax by applying the test of human probabilities (Sumathi Dayal Vs. Income Tax, 1995 Supp. (2) (SCC 453). It was submitted that even under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, it is obligatory for the assessee to explain the genuineness of the transaction (gift) failing which it will be brought to tax by applying the test of human probabilities (Sumathi Dayal Vs. Income Tax, 1995 Supp. (2) (SCC 453). "The transactions though apparent were held to be not real one, may be money came by way of bank cheques and paid through process of banking transaction, but that itself is of no consequence" as held in the case of CIT Vs. Mohanakala, 2007 AIR 2216, 2007 (6) SCR 680, 2007 (6) SCC 21 , (6) SCC 21, 2007 (7) SCALE 599. It was submitted that in the proceedings under SAFEM(FO) Act, it is the fundamental requirement that the legality of the sources for acquisition of a property are proved in terms of Section 3(1)(c) thereof and hence, the reasons have been validly recorded. It was submitted that even if the Income Tax Officer has failed to examine the genuineness of the gift, such erroneous findings by the Income Tax Officer cannot be given the colour of legality in view of the provisions of Chater VI of the Income Tax Act, which have been confirmed by the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions quoted above. 16. It was submitted that the amount advanced by the husband itself was subject matter of proceedings under SAFEM (FOP) Act, and hence, the amounts alleged to have been advanced by the husband have already been subjected to enquiry in this case also. The learned counsel has submitted that there was a discrepancy in the amount of investment made from the amount advanced by the husband, which formed the basis for initiation of proceedings in this case. Further, the owners to prove that the mother of the petitioner had acquired the land through legal sources is on the petitioner herself in terms of Section 8 of the Act. Hence, notice has been issued in accordance with the provisions of law. 17. It was submitted that as per the provisions of SAFEM (FOP) Act, even if a small portion of the source for the total cost of acquisition of a property stands unexplained, the property becomes liable for forfeiture. Hence, notice has been issued in accordance with the provisions of law. 17. It was submitted that as per the provisions of SAFEM (FOP) Act, even if a small portion of the source for the total cost of acquisition of a property stands unexplained, the property becomes liable for forfeiture. If only more than fifty percent of the sources are explained, the person has an option to pay fine, in lieu of forfeiture of property. Failure to avail this opportunity also would result in absolute forfeiture. However, the facts remaining in this case has not established to say that more than fifty percent of the sources for the acquisition of the property by the petitioner to have come out of licit sources. This ground is totally misconceived and such a view has been arrived at by the Hon'ble ATFP under para 9 of its order, wherein it has been stated that, "From the above discussion, it would be seen that Smt. K.H. Katheeja has been able to explain Rs.4,41,184/- (Rs.14,184/- + 50,000/- + 3,62,000 + 15,000) as from the genuine sources and the balance amount, which is more than 50% of the total cost, whether one takes the cost of the construction of the Tourist Home as Rs.10,02,000/- as evaluated by the I.T. Department or Rs.9,97,280/- as estimated by the appellant. The competent Authority has, therefore, correctly forfeited the said Tourist Home without any option of fine in lieu of the forfeiture and we do not see any reasons to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected." 18. It was submitted that the allegation that the cost of construction was determined as on 31.03.1979 for the purpose of the proceedings and that as such the order was illegal, incorrect and misconceived. The noticee having put up the construction even subsequent to the issue of notice under Section 6(1) did so at her own risk, because the property was a subject matter of notice for forfeiture. Having put up further construction, without allowing to estimate the actual construction on the date of notice, the petitioner cannot benefit out of her own action. It was submitted that all sources that were available have been elaborately considered in the order. Thus, the principles of natural justice have been adopted in the impugned order and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. 19. It was submitted that all sources that were available have been elaborately considered in the order. Thus, the principles of natural justice have been adopted in the impugned order and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. 19. It was submitted that the petitioner cannot benefit out of her own act of putting up additional construction on the property subject to notice and claim any benefit out of the same. The enquiry regarding the sources for the mother had been validly made in as much as the very purpose of the act in its preamble states that the convicts and detentes indulge in making investments out of their ill-gotten wealth in the name of their relatives/associates. The respondents have taken up appropriate view and this ground has to be totally rejected. Further, when the forfeiture notice was issued, the mother did not hold the property she gifted to the petitioner. Hence, no proceedings could be initiated against the mother of the petitioner. It was submitted that the case of the husband of the petitioner as also that of the petitioner were represented by the same representative before the first respondent as also the second respondent. Hence, the question of giving separate opportunities does not arise as the two are connected cases and were heard simultaneously. It was submitted that the firm and the partner are not different entities. The ill-gotten monies of her husband having been ploughed into the assets of the firm and the petitioner having taken a loan only in view of the husband being a partner, this ground cannot be raised. It is further to be noticed that the firm has not been made out to be indulging in money lending business so that the petitioner could have received it in the course of the business of the firm. The rejection of the explanation regarding the loan had not been done arbitrarily, but only on assessment based on facts. 20. It was submitted that the reasons recorded have properly brought out the link between the illegally acquired property of the detenue husband and the flow of funds into the acquisition of the property by the petitioner. The orders are not bad in law and the very distinction of illegally acquired property under Section 3(1)(c) of the Act under which an unexplained source is also defined as an illegal source under Section 3(1)(c)(iii) of the Act. The orders are not bad in law and the very distinction of illegally acquired property under Section 3(1)(c) of the Act under which an unexplained source is also defined as an illegal source under Section 3(1)(c)(iii) of the Act. It was submitted that it has not been brought out that more than fifty percent of sources for the acquisition of the property by the petitioner have come out of licit means so that redemption of the property by payment of fine in lieu of forfeiture could be allowed to the petitioner as provided under Section 9(1) of the Act. 21. It was submitted that since no prima facie case exists in favour of the petitioner, the balance of convenience is in favour of the respondent and the order of stay will result in miscarriage of justice. It was prayed that the order of stay granted in W.M.P.No.819 of 1998, dated 21.02.1998 may be vacated. It was submitted that the public revenue would be grossly affected and recovery would be totally frustrated if the order of interim stay is not vacated. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the writ petition and W.M.P. The operative portion of the impugned order is as follows:- "(F.P.A.No.9/MDS/95):-As stated earlier, this appeal has been preferred by Smt. K.H. Katheeja, wife of Shri K.M. Basheer Ahmed, who was detained under the COFEPOSA and the property forfeited is described as "International Tourist Home, Railway Station Road, Calicut-2 (for short, "Tourist Home"). As per valuation report of the valuation cell, Calicut, the said Tourist Home was valued at Rs.10,02,000/- as on 31.03.1979 as against Rs.9,97,280/- as claimed by the appellant as the cost of its construction. For purpose of this appeal, there is not much difference between these two figures. The appellant has explained sourced of investment in the site for the Tourist Home and subsequent construction thereon as under:- Amount Description Rs.25,000/- Site was purchased by the appellant's mother in 1972 and gifted to her Rs.50,000/- From her money lending business subsequent to the stoppage of the said business in January 1974. Rs.91,000/- Loan from M/s.K.M.Basheer & Co., (In which her husband was a partner). Rs.2,35,000/- Loan from her husband Shri K.M.Basheer Rs.3,62,000/- Loan from M/s.Kerala State Finance Corporation Rs.15,000/- Sale proceeds of scrap Rs.25,000/- Loan from Shri Ahmed Hasi. Rs.8,03,000/- 8. Rs.91,000/- Loan from M/s.K.M.Basheer & Co., (In which her husband was a partner). Rs.2,35,000/- Loan from her husband Shri K.M.Basheer Rs.3,62,000/- Loan from M/s.Kerala State Finance Corporation Rs.15,000/- Sale proceeds of scrap Rs.25,000/- Loan from Shri Ahmed Hasi. Rs.8,03,000/- 8. In the impugned order, the C.A. has accepted investment of Rs.3,87,009/- as from the genuine sources and the remaining amount as from the unexplained sources and since the investment in the said Tourist Home from the legitimate sources is less than 50%, he has forfeited the said property without any option of fine in lieu of the forfeiture as provided in Section 9(2) of the SAFEMA. We proceed to discuss below the various items of investments. (a) Rs.25,000/- cost of site financed by the appellant's mother and gifted to her:- It is claimed that the land was purchased by her mother for a sum of Rs.25,000/- in 1972 and gifted to the appellant. The appellant's mother sourced the above investment of Rs.25,000/- partly through the sale of her jewellery for a total sum of Rs.14,884/- and the remaining amount from the savings left to her by her husband who died sometime in 1964. The C.A. has accepted sale of jewellery for a sum of Rs.14,184/- as genuine and also its subsequent investment in the said property. However, in the absence of any evidence that her mother could have kept the balance amount of about Rs.11,000/- with her in cash for about 8 years, he has not accepted this as explained. Since at this stage too, the appellant has not produced any other evidence in support of her say, we do not see any reason to interfere with the C.A.'s findings in this regard. (b) Rs.50,000/- on stopping of the appellant's money lending business:- The appellant claims that in the A.Y.1969-70 to 1972-73 her assessed aggregate income was Rs.52,000/- for money lending business. In 1974, she stopped the money lending business and diverted the capital of about Rs.50,000/- from the money lending business to the construction work. Against this, the C.A. has opined that only Rs.10,825/- received by the appellant as marriage gifts and used for starting the money lending business can be said to be explained money; the rest amount has been ignored by him on the following grounds:- (i) She did not maintain any records for conducting the money lending business. Against this, the C.A. has opined that only Rs.10,825/- received by the appellant as marriage gifts and used for starting the money lending business can be said to be explained money; the rest amount has been ignored by him on the following grounds:- (i) She did not maintain any records for conducting the money lending business. (ii) No bank accounts maintained for the purpose of money lending. (iii) It is incomprehensible that a person would earn more than 120% interest in money lending business carried on in a small scale confined to a few known people in the neighbourhood. (iv) She does not remember names of the persons to whom money was given on loan, strangely when the business, as claimed by the appellant, was carried on with the neighbours. (v) Return of Income for the above 4 A.yrs. 1969-70 to 1972-73 and also for the subsequent years 1973-74 and 1974-75 were filed together at a later date. (vi) Though in her letter dated 26.01.1977, she had said that money lending business was stopped from January, 1974, however, in her letter dated 08.10.1980 addressed to the I.T.O., Calicut, she has shown a capital of Rs.25,000/- as available from money lending business as on 01.04.1977 (A.Y.1978-79), the two letters contradicting each other leading to belief that it was a 'cooked up argument'. We have perused the assessment orders for the A.Y.1969-70 to 1972-73 which have been made under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, all on 25.11.1972. These assessment orders clearly show that the appellant was carrying on money lending business and her returned income, accepted by the Assessing Officer as correct, was Rs.13,000/- in each of the four assessment years. In view of this and also for the reason that there is nothing substantial except some surmises and presumptions made by the C.A., it may be reasonable to accept that the appellant did carry money lending business and that she did earn an aggregate income of Rs.52,000/- from that business during these assessment years. Further, in the absence of any other suggestion to the contrary that the appellant might have used this amount for any other purpose, it would not be unsafe to accept that the appellant invested this amount of Rs.50,000/- , as claimed by her, towards construction of the Tourist Home. Further, in the absence of any other suggestion to the contrary that the appellant might have used this amount for any other purpose, it would not be unsafe to accept that the appellant invested this amount of Rs.50,000/- , as claimed by her, towards construction of the Tourist Home. Accordingly, we accept appellant's contention that she has explained this source of Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of investment in the said Tourist Home. (c) Rs.91,000/- loan from M/s. K.M.Basheer & Co. The C.A. has held that sources of investment identifying in M/s. K.M. Basheer & Co., for which the appellant had taken a sum of Rs.91,000/- as loan, was not properly explained vide his order dated 19.01.1995 in the case of Shri. K.M. Basheer Ahmed, detenue husband of the present appellant (The said order dated 19.01.1995 is the subject matter of the first mentioned appeal). While in discussions this appeal of Shri Basheer Ahmed in para 5(g) above, we have already endorsed the C.A.'s views that the investment in M/s. K.M. Basheer & Co., was not properly explained. In view of this, we agree with the C.A. that this loan of Rs.91,000/- was sourced through the tainted money. (d) Rs.2,35,000/- loan from her husband Shri. K.M. Hasheer Ahmed The appellant has claimed that she had taken a loan of Rs.2,35,000/- from her husband for utilization in the building construction. This sum is claimed to be comprising of sum of Rs.95,000/- by way of transfer by her husband from his business funds (Rs.85,000/- in accounting year 1973-74 and Rs.10,000/- in accounting year 1974-75) and the remaining amount by sale of the husband's lorry and agricultural land etc., as per the details given in the loan amount maintained by the appellant. According to this, the loan outstanding as on 31.03.1979 was Rs.2,35,000/- . However, in his letter dated 05.12.1979, Shri. K.M. Basheer Ahmed in reply to the forfeiture notice issued to him, has categorically stated that he had lent only a sum of Rs.85,000/- he has also explained the sources of the said amount of Rs.85,000/- as is evident from income tax assessment order dated 14.03.1980 for A.Y.1974-75. However, subsequently, he varied the sources from the advancement of the said Rs.85,000/- . In view of the patent contradictions, the I.T.O. did not accept the source as genuine and added Rs.46,300/- out of Rs.85,000/- as income from undisclosed sources. However, subsequently, he varied the sources from the advancement of the said Rs.85,000/- . In view of the patent contradictions, the I.T.O. did not accept the source as genuine and added Rs.46,300/- out of Rs.85,000/- as income from undisclosed sources. However, on appeal, the addition was reduced by Rs.8,000/- thereby lending a sum of Rs.38,300/- as income from undisclosed sources. The C.A. has held that the remaining amount of Rs.46,700/- (Rs.85,000 - 38,300) has also not been properly explained since no evidence whatsoever in the form of sale deed, confirmatory letters, transfer entry in R.C.books, voucher for sale of timber etc., to prove sale of agricultural property and lorry have been furnished and thus, the sources for financing the loan have not been fully explained satisfactorily. We agree with his findings. Further, we state that as on 31.03.1979 outstanding loan was Rs.2,35,000/- see also para 5(h) above. (e) Rs.3,62,000/- from M/s. Kerala State Finance Corporation We have perused the account maintained by the appellant that M/s. Kerala State Finance Corporation, had advanced loan totalling to Rs.3,62,000/- , the last instalment of loan was disbursed on 25.10.1975. In view of this, we agree with the C.A.'s finding and that is also the claim of the appellant that she has explained Rs.3,62,000/- as from genuine sources. (f) Rs.15,000/- from sale of scrap We do not agree with the C.A.'s finding that the appellant could not have received a sum of Rs.15,000/- on account of sale of scrap generated on demolition of the structure which undoubtedly existed on the land on which the Tourist Home was later constructed. Thus, we accept this amount of Rs.15,000/- as fully explained. (g) Rs.25,000/- loan from one Shri Ahmed Hazi The appellant has made no efforts to prove that she had taken a loan of Rs.25,000/- from Shri Ahmed Hazi. In view of this, we agree with the C.A.'s finding that it cannot be accepted as a genuine source. 9. From the above discussion, it would be seen that Smt. K.H. Katheeja has been able to explain Rs.4,41,184/- (Rs.14,184 + 50,000 + 3,62,000 + 15,000) as from the genuine sources and the balance amount, which is more than 50% of the total cost, whether one takes the cost of the construction of the Tourist Home as Rs.10,02,000/- as evaluated by the I.T. Department or Rs.9,97,280/- as estimated by the appellant. The C.A. has, therefore, correctly forfeited the said Tourist Home without any option of fine in lieu of the forfeiture and we do not see any reasons to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected." 22. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the first respondent has erroneously concluded that more than 50% of the total cost of the construction had not been shown as legal income. Actually, at the time of issuing the show cause notice, the land value had not been determined along with the superstructure in building. Therefore, the issue had not been properly decided. Further, the allegation of the respondent that the petitioner's husband had illegally earned the money and contributed the same to his wife i.e., the writ petitioner has not been backed by any substantial documentary evidence. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the property in respect of which the notice under Section 6 was issued is the "International Tourist Home" valued at Rs.7,00,000/- as it existed as on the date of notice. The said notice clearly stated that the second respondent had, on the basis of relevant information or relevant materials available to him, reason to believe that the said property is illegally acquired. In view of the said specific notice and pursuant thereto, the second respondent can forfeit to the Government only the property which existed on the date of notice. While this is so, the second respondent, has by order dated 6th February 1995 evaluated and ascertained the property as on 31sth March 1975 at Rs.10,02,000/- and as sought to forfeit the said property to the Government. Consequently, the said order is not sustainable under law. The first respondent has confirmed the above said order without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, in regard to the validity of the said order. 23. The learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner further contended that only reason adduced by the second respondent is that though she has filed Income Tax Returns and paid Income Tax in respect of the income from money lending business, the particulars of such business are not furnished along with the returns to the Income Tax Authorities. Consequently, it is assessed that the investment made out of the income and assets of the money lending business, are illegally acquired. Such a presumption is not warranted on the materials on record. Consequently, it is assessed that the investment made out of the income and assets of the money lending business, are illegally acquired. Such a presumption is not warranted on the materials on record. Another reason recorded is that for the year 1974-75, she had declared the income from the property gifted to her by her mother. It is admitted that the necessary applications for issue of certificates under Section 230 A of the Income Tax Act are available and full particulars were furnished. Notwithstanding this, it is alleged that the particulars regarding the acquisition of the property are not furnished and hence, there is reason to believe that the property is allegedly acquired. Yet another reason recorded is that the total cost of construction till 31st March 1975 was Rs.6,80,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- represented loan from the Kerala State Finance Corporation. It is stated that the particulars regarding the balance are not available and hence it is presumed that the properties have been illegally acquired. This presumption is totally without any basis. The Section 6 requires reasons to be recorded to come to the belief that the properties are illegally acquired. Hence, the reason recorded should show a link with regard to the source of acquisition of the property and the availability of material to justify the presumption that the properties are illegally acquired. The reason recorded merely shows that there were no particulars with regard to a loan portion of the investment. Even assuming, without conceding that this statement is correct, that would not justify the presumption that the properties have been illegally acquired. Hence, the very reasons recorded by the second respondent do not justify the presumption or belief that the properties are illegally acquired. 24. The learned senior counsel further argued that though the reasons recorded only conclude that the substantial portion of the funds utilized for the construction of the property is out of unexplained source, an explained source is not necessarily an illegal source. The mere averment that the entire source of the funds are not explained would not justify the belief that the properties have been illegally acquired. Further, the proceedings were commenced in November 1976. The final order is made in January 1995 after a lapse of about 20 years. There is no reason for the inordinate delay in passing the above said order. Further, the proceedings were commenced in November 1976. The final order is made in January 1995 after a lapse of about 20 years. There is no reason for the inordinate delay in passing the above said order. As such, the principle of natural justice is violated. As per Article 19 of the Constitution, a speedy trial is essential to meet the ends of justice. 25. The learned senior counsel further contended that the property which was the subject matter of the notice was to construction, as it existed as on 27th November 1996. While this is so, the property forfeited was the property which existed and was evaluated as on 31.03.1975. This vitiates the order under Section 7. The source for the construction has been duly explained and consequently, the conclusion of the second respondent that the investment has been made out of illegally acquired funds. This conclusions has not been based on any documentary evidence. Further, the notice under Section 6 was not issued to the mother of the petitioner as she was not involved in the said case. Therefore, the discussion regarding bona-fide of the mother of the petitioner is unwarranted. The learned senior counsel vehemently argued that the appellate authority erred in confirming the order of the competent authority to that effect that the loan taken by her from K.M. Basheer and Co is tainted money. The said firm is a registered partnership firm and running as per law and procedure. The allegation made by both the respondents that the petitioner availed loan from the company which is tainted has not been proved through any documentary evidence and is only a hypothetical theory, but the same company has been functioning as per the terms and conditions of the Company Registration Act. The first respondent had not passed a speaking order in the appeal filed by the writ petitioner before him. As such, there is lack of clarity and absence of reasons. The learned senior counsel in support of his contention has filed a typed set of papers, which contains income tax particulars and title deeds of property. The first respondent had not passed a speaking order in the appeal filed by the writ petitioner before him. As such, there is lack of clarity and absence of reasons. The learned senior counsel in support of his contention has filed a typed set of papers, which contains income tax particulars and title deeds of property. The learned senior counsel has cited the following judgments in support of his contentions:- (i) FATIMA MOHD.AMIN v. UNION OF INDIA reported in (2003) 7 Supreme Court Cases 436 "Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976-S.6 (1) - Notices not disclosing any reasons warranting action against the appellants -No allegation whatsoever regarding existence of any link or nexus between the property sought to be forfeited and the illegally acquired money of the detenue(s) under COFEPOSA Act - In such circumstances, held, the impugned orders of forfeiture cannot be sustained and are liable to be set-aside." (ii) Aamenabai Tayebaly v. Competent Authority under SAFEMA reported in AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 484 "(B) Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act (13 of 1976) S.6 - Forfeiture of Property -Number of properties purchased with tainted money earned by smuggler - Confiscation of such properties after following due procedure Would not amount to multiple forfeiture." (iii) R.Ramakrishnan v. Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Propertyii reported in (2011) 6 MLJ 661 "Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act (13 of 1976), Section 2(2) (C), 3 and 6(1) - Forfeiture of illegally acquired property - Order of competent authority, challenged -Requirement of issuance of notice under Section 6(1) not satisfied - No link established between property sought to be forfeited and income or assets illegally acquired - Proceedings vitiated by absence of nexus between holder of property proceeded against and illegal activity of detenue - Show-cause notice issued against detenue illegal- Order of forfeiture set-aside. Writ petition allowed." (iv) V.Mohan v. Income Tax Officer, Kumbakonam reported in 2008 CRI.L.J.2821 "(A) Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act (13 of 1976) S.2(2)(c), Explanation -"Relative" of convict - Brother's wife and son -Are "relatives" in term of definition. Writ petition allowed." (iv) V.Mohan v. Income Tax Officer, Kumbakonam reported in 2008 CRI.L.J.2821 "(A) Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act (13 of 1976) S.2(2)(c), Explanation -"Relative" of convict - Brother's wife and son -Are "relatives" in term of definition. (B) Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act (13 of 1976) Ss.6, 18 - Forfeiture of Property of relative - Absence of notice on convict -Is jurisdictional defect -Competent authority cannot proceed in matter by merely serving notice on petitioner-relative." The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further argued that if the unexplained amount i.e., assumed as illegal money, is utilized for building construction, then the respondent can impose fine as per the Act, but the respondent cannot forfeit the said property. Hence, the learned senior counsel entreats to allow the above writ petition and set-aside the impugned order of the first respondent. 26. The learned counsel for the second respondent vehemently argued that the petitioner's husband had been detained under COFEPOSA since he had been involved in smuggling activities. Out of his income, the writ petitioner had constructed the International Tourist Home. The petitioner was given an opportunity to give explanation regarding the income derived from her sources for constructing the building but she is unable to give an explanation for the cost of construction of the Tourist Home for a sum of Rs.10,02,000/- . However, she gave explanation for about Rs.4,41,184/- which is less than 50% of the total cost of construction. Therefore, for construction of the building, tainted money which had been received from her husband had been utilized by the petitioner. Besides this, she had taken loan from M/s. K.M. Basheer & Co., wherein the petitioner's husband was a partner and therefore, the money taken from this firm is also tainted money. The learned counsel vehemently argued that as per Section 3(c), "Illegally acquired property in relation to any person to whom this act applies, means, any property acquired by such persons, whether before or after the commencement of this act, wholly or partly out of or by means of any income or earnings of assets derived or obtained from or attributable from any activities prohibited by or under any law for the time being in force relating to any matter in respect of which parliament has power to make laws. The writ petitioner had not submitted about her income sources with relevant records. She duty bound to give proper explanation on the show-cause notice issued by the second respondent / competent authority, but she had not furnished any documentary facts regarding her sources of income. The delay of 20 years in pronouncing the order had not been caused by both the respondents but only due to the non-cooperation of the writ petitioner and her husband. The learned counsel further contended that if the family members of the detenue i.e., husband of the writ petitioner have any movable or immovable properties, without disclosing the legal income, then the properties would be forfeited as per the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. Accordingly, the proceedings had been initiated against the writ petitioner, who constructed the international tourist home acquired at her husband's tainted money, who had been arrested under COFEPOSA Act, as he had been involved in smuggling activities. The learned counsel in support of his contentions had cited the following judgment:- KESAR DEVI v. UNION OF INDIA reported in (2003) 7 Supreme Court Cases 427 "A. Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 -Ss.6,7,8 and 2(2)(c) Expln. (2) (iii), (vi), (vii) -Notice under S.6 need not show any link or nexus between the illegally acquired money of the detenue and the property sought to be forfeited for passing order of forfeiture under S.7 -Only requirement for the competent authority is to have reasons to believe and the same must be recorded in writing to the effect that the property was illegally acquired -Whereafter burden would be on the person to whom the notice was issued to prove that the property was not illegally acquired - Wife failing to establish any income of her own to acquire the said properties. - On facts held, notice satisfied the requirements of S.6 B. Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 -Ss.3(1)(c), 6 and 7 - Competent authority to show link or nexus to substantiate the belief that property was illegally acquired -Has to be indicated where relationship with person holding the property is remote, but not when the relationship is close and direct, such as with spouse, child or parent." Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition. 27. 27. After the above discussion, this Court is of the view that:- (i) The first respondent valued the said building at Rs.10,02,000/- as against Rs.9,97,280/- , claimed by the petitioner. However, the report regarding assessment of building value by a competent Civil Engineer had not been produced. (ii) It is also seen that cost of building construction as in the year 1974 was Rs.6,80,000/- out of which Rs.3,60,000/- has been taken as loan from Kerala State Finance Corporation which amounts to more than 50% and hence forfeiture will not be applicable. Further, the respondent had not determined the land value, wherein the building had been constructed. (iii) It is seen that the cost was determined in the year 1979, but building construction had been started right from the year 1972 and this factor has to be taken into account for calculation of construction cost. (iv) The show cause notice was issued by the second respondent on 27.11.1976. Now about 37 years have already lapsed for conclusion of the said proceedings. During the period of 37 years, it is seen that the entire physical possession of the property is with the petitioner and that she is in enjoyment of the said property by letting out the said building for rent to the customers. During this period, painting, repair, renovation, changing the infrastructure of the said Tourist Home and other amenities would have been carried out by the petitioner and all these factors have also to be considered in appropriate manner. In addition to this, if the property is forfeited, the petitioner would be put into hardship and irreparable loss. (v) It is also seen that the said landed property had been gifted by her mother through a gift registered deed. Besides, it is seen from the documentary evidence that she had availed loan of a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- from Kerala State Finance Corporation for construction of the building and it is evident thereon that on the date on which the initial notice was sent, more than 50% of the construction cost of building excluding land value was through a legal source. Therefore, the balance of convenience squarely rests in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the show cause notice for forfeiting the property runs against the two principles, viz., irreparable loss and balance of convenience. Therefore, the balance of convenience squarely rests in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the show cause notice for forfeiting the property runs against the two principles, viz., irreparable loss and balance of convenience. (vi) As per the respondent's contention, the petitioner utilized the illegal money which was earned by her husband. In order to prove the same, no documentary evidence had been produced by the respondent. At the same time, the petitioner is unable to explain the funds which had been utilized by her for construction of the building. The unexplained funds could not be treated as illegally earned money by her husband. Further, there was no discussion regarding the petitioner's family and the earning members of the family. (vii) It has been contended that the respondents had considered that the loan of Rs.91,000/- taken by the petitioner from Basheer & Co as tainted money as they had earlier concluded that the investment made by her husband in the said firm was also through tainted money. However, it is evident that the petitioner had not received the money from her husband, on the basis of being his spouse, but had only taken it as a loan from the partnership firm and hence, this money could not be considered as tainted money. Further, M/s. Basheer & Co., is a partnership firm and not owned solely by her husband. Therefore, the question of tainted money does not arise in the said issuance of loan. (viii) It is seen that the petitioner's mother had gifted the property by way of registered gift deed. As such, the landed property which is nil encumbered property cannot be considered as bought through illegally acquired funds derived from her husband's income. Therefore, the landed property could not be forfeited, as the subsequent matter of the present dispute is only regarding the superstructure. Therefore, the forfeiture of land, which had been gifted to the petitioner by her mother through a gift deed cannot come under the purview of the "Act". The property had not been purchased by her and the petitioner had only succeeded it through her mother. Therefore, the forfeiture of land, which had been gifted to the petitioner by her mother through a gift deed cannot come under the purview of the "Act". The property had not been purchased by her and the petitioner had only succeeded it through her mother. (ix) This Court is of the further view that the Income Tax Returns particulars furnished showed taxes paid on legal source of income and no case has been made out by the respondents to show that the Income Tax Authorities collect income tax for illegally earned money also and hence, this point is not sustainable under law. (x) The respondent stated that originally the landed property had been purchased in the name of the petitioner's mother in the year 1972 for a sum of Rs.25,000/- out of the illegal money which had been given by the petitioner's husband to her mother. However, this contention has not been backed by any substantial documentary evidence and is based only on presumption. Further, the petitioner's mother cannot be treated as a "person" as per the Act. (xi) The allegation had been levelled against the petitioner's mother stating that the land had been purchased originally in the name of the petitioner's mother out of the illegally earned income of the husband of petitioner. Therefore, to decide this issue, the petitioner's mother is also a necessary party before the competent authority as well as appellate Tribunal to determine the veracity of the original sale deed as well as the gift deed made out to the petitioner. (xii) The show cause notice has been issued under Section 6(1) to the petitioner and explanation was sought from her regarding the forfeiture of the property. This notice does not in any way, debar the petitioner from going ahead with further construction and for enjoyment of her property. The show cause notice was nothing but a preliminary notice and not an order and does not prevent the petitioner from going ahead with further construction and enjoyment. (xiii) The respondents submitted that the case of the husband of the petitioner and the petitioner were tried simultaneously and they were represented by the same person. Now, the husband of the petitioner is no more, as was informed by the learned counsel. (xiii) The respondents submitted that the case of the husband of the petitioner and the petitioner were tried simultaneously and they were represented by the same person. Now, the husband of the petitioner is no more, as was informed by the learned counsel. It is seen that the common order has been passed by the first respondent / appellate authority in appeal in FPA No.9/MDS/95 and FPA No.10/MDS/95 against the petitioner and her husband. Now, as the husband of the petitioner is no more, the husband's appeal has abated. Consequently, the common impugned order is not maintainable. (xiv) The writ petitioner has failed to give detailed explanation regarding a portion of amount which had been utilized for the construction of the said building. It is imperative that the petitioner should give explanation regarding the source of income for the construction of the building, but she has failed to do so. The second respondent, being the competent authority is equally liable to give an explanation regarding the charge of "illegal money" received by the petitioner from her husband, by way of documentary evidence, but the second respondent has failed to establish their case that the writ petitioner had acquired illegal tainted money from her husband. Therefore, the impugned order of the competent authority has not been supported through documentary evidence. Therefore, the original impugned order passed by the second respondent /competent authority is not maintainable. As such, the subsequent order passed by the first respondent is also not sustainable under law. (xv) This Court is of the further view that the second respondent had initiated the show cause proceedings in the year 1976. After the final order of the second respondent, the writ petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent. So, the matter is pending on the file of both the respondents for about 20 years, which is an inordinate delay for deciding the issue regarding forfeiture of property. This delay has caused injustice to the petitioner. (xvi) The petitioner has been enjoying the interim order passed in W.M.P.No.819 of 1998, dated 21.02.1998. As such, she is enjoying the said property for a period of more than 14 years without any interference. Under the circumstances, the property cannot be forfeited after such a long period since the other expenses for maintenance of building has also been incurred by the petitioner including further investments. As such, she is enjoying the said property for a period of more than 14 years without any interference. Under the circumstances, the property cannot be forfeited after such a long period since the other expenses for maintenance of building has also been incurred by the petitioner including further investments. The interim order shows that there is a prima facie case on the side of the petitioner. 28. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the second respondent and on perusing the impugned order of the first respondent and this Court's view listed as (i) to (xvi), this Court finds that the contentions made out in the writ has enough force to allow the writ petition. 29. In the result, the above writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the operation of the order of the second respondent in OCA/MDS/308/76, dated 6th January 1995, as confirmed by the first respondent in its order in F.P.A.No.9/MDS/95, dated 4th September 1997 is set-aside. Accordingly ordered. There is no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.