JUDGMENT : K. KUMARESH BABU, J. Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, prays to set aside the order made in Rev.No.194 of 2012 in W.P.No.18185 of 2012, dated 10.04.2014. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order made in Rev.No.194 of 2012 in W.P.No.18185 of 2012, dated 10.04.2014. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant had purchased a property bearing site number 119 and 120 of Vinayagapuram layout, Thottipalayam Village, in S.No.766(part), T.S.No.494(part), measuring and extent of 6600 square feet in the year 1992. The property was originally belonged to one Saraswathi wife of M.Swaminathan. The said Swaminathan was detained under the provisions of Smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators (forfeiture of property) act 1976. Various properties belonging to the said Swaminathan and his wife Saraswathi allegedly were found to be purchased by ill gotten money and hence proceedings were initiated as to why the properties should not be forfeited. The competent authority under the act by his order dated 31st July, 1996 issued orders forfeiting two of the properties in T.S.No.484 & 494 at Rayavaram extension, Thottipalayam, Tirupur belonging to the said Swaminathan and Saraswathi respectively. They being aggrieved have preferred a statutory appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi. The Tribunal after considering the submissions made, dismissed the appeal by its order dated sixth of July 2000. However taking into consideration the appellant's request that in the lieu of payment of fine one of the property may be released as provided under section 9 (1) of the said act, the Tribunal has ordered payment of fine and on such payment declaration of forfeiture made under section 7 (1) in respect of site bearing number 494 Rayavaram extension, Thottipalayam, Tirupur, be vacated and the property released. By proceedings in July 2000, the competent authority under section 19 (1) had forfeited the property of said Swaminathan in TS No 484 of Rayavaram extension, Thottipalayam, Tirupur. 3. However, a notice of auction, describing the property purchased by the petitioner in TS No. 494, Rayavaram extension, Thottipalayam, Tirupur, was issued claiming that the said property has been forfeited. Immediately the appellant had preferred a writ petition challenging the same. 3. However, a notice of auction, describing the property purchased by the petitioner in TS No. 494, Rayavaram extension, Thottipalayam, Tirupur, was issued claiming that the said property has been forfeited. Immediately the appellant had preferred a writ petition challenging the same. On recording the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Competent Authority that they did not intend to bring the property in T.S.No.494 for sale, as only the house site in T.S.No.484 of Rayavaram extension, Thottipalayam, Tirupur, belonging to Swaminathan was only forfeited, the Single Judge disposed of the writ petition, as no further adjudication was necessary. A Review Petition was filed by the Competent Authority/1st respondent herein alleging that the description of property was given by the said Swaminathan and the discrepancy in the description of property came to light only when actual possession was taken over by the revenue authorities. Hence, the mistake has occurred inadvertently by making a representation that the authority did not intend to proceed with T.S.No.494 Rayavaram extension, Thottipalayam, Tirupur and they intend to deal with only property in S.No.484, Rayavaram extension, Thottipalayam, Tirupur. and sought to review the order. The Learned Judge, by the impunged order, has allowed the review and dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Heard Mr. B. Kumar Learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S. Prabhu on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.V.Chandrasekaran, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent. 5. The learned Senior Counsel drew our attention to the notice of the 1st respondent dated 22-06-1978 issued under Section 5(1) of the SAFEMA calling upon the predecessor in title of the appellant whereunder various properties were sought to be forfeited. He further drew our attention to the order of the 1st respondent/competent authority made under Section 7(1) of SAFEMA dated 31.07.1996. After consideration of explanation, the 1st respondent/competent authority, except two properties, have released the remaining properties. 6. The Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that against the said order of the Competent authority an appeal has been preferred before the Appellate Authority, which by its order dated 06.07.2000 dismissed the appeal. After consideration of explanation, the 1st respondent/competent authority, except two properties, have released the remaining properties. 6. The Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that against the said order of the Competent authority an appeal has been preferred before the Appellate Authority, which by its order dated 06.07.2000 dismissed the appeal. However, invoking the provisions of Sec 9 of SAFEMA, at the request of the predecessors, directed them to pay the fine within four weeks and on such payment the declaration of forfeiture under Section 7(1) with regard to site bearing No.494, Rayavaram Extension, Thottipalayam, Tirupur, shall stand vacated and the property shall stand released. However, to the shock and surprise of the appellants, an auction notice of the property in No.494 Rayavaram Extension, Thottipalayam, Tirupur, was to be brought to auction on the premise that the same has been forfeited. 7. The Learned Senior Counsel vehemently contended that the Appellate Tribunal has ordered release of the said property on payment of the fine which has also been paid. Hence, he submitted that the Competent Authority had no power to deal with the property and hence the counsel for the Competent authority conceded, based on which the Learned Judge recording the submissions has passed orders. He further contended, only a period of one year has been mandated for rectification of mistakes as per Section 20 of SAFEMA. Hence, the authority cannot, after the period of one year, seek to rectify the same. 8. Countering the arguments of the Learned Senior Counsel, the counsel for the first respondent submitted that when a notice was issued under Section 6(1) of SAFEMA, the property referred to in the same could not be dealt with by the owners as provided under Section 11 of SAFEMA. Here, pending the proceedings, the appellant has purchased the property and hence, the transaction is null and void. He further submitted that as per Section 13 of SAFEMA, a notice or order made cannot be held to be invalid on the ground that the description of the property has been made wrongly if the property could be identified from the description so mentioned. Hence he stated that the mistake could not be said to make the order invalid and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 9. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsels on either side. 10. Hence he stated that the mistake could not be said to make the order invalid and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 9. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsels on either side. 10. It is seen that a notice under Section 6(1) of SAFEMA was issued to one Swaminathan for violating the provisions of the said Act and had called upon him, as to why the properties mentioned therein should not be forfeited. This said notice also included the properties standing in the name of his wife Sarawathi. It would be pertinent to extract the Schedule to the notice for better appreciation of facts. Sl. No. Description of the Property Name of the Present holder of property 1 House at T.S.No.2526 Vaniyadi Street, Fort, Tiruchy, purchased on 06.07.1972 for Rs.7,721/- M.Swaminathan 2. House site at T.S.484, Rayavaram. Extension Thottipalayam, Tirupur purchased on 25.02.1974 for Rs.6,651/- M.Swaminathan 3 House site at T.S.no.494, Bayaram Extensikon Thottipalayam, Tirupur purchased on 25.02.1974 for Rs.6,106/ Smt.Saraswathi, W/o.M.Swaminathan 4 House at Block No.1, Ward 14, Chinnakadai St., Tiruchy purchased on 16.04.1975 for Rs.6,656 Smt.Saraswathi, W/o.M.Swaminathan 5. S.55 ½ acres of dry agricultural lands in S.Nos.66,54/1, 87/1, 91/1, 91/2, 92/2, KaraipudurVillage, Palladam Tk Smt.Saraswathi, W/o.M.Swaminathan 11. Pursuant to the notice after hearing the parties, the competent authority had passed final order under Section 7(1) of SAFEMA on 31.07.1996. Of the properties mentioned in the initial notice dated 22.06.1978 the Competent Authority has forfeited two properties and has released the remaining properties as the amount involved in the purchase of the said properties have been accounted to by the said Swaminathan. As per the order the following properties were forefeited: Sl.No. Description of the property Name of the Present holder of property 1 House site at T.S.484, Rayavaram Extension, Thottipalayam, Tirupur M.Swaminathan 2 House site T.S.No.,494, Bayavaram Extensikon Thottipalayam, Tirupur Smt.Saraswathi 12. The said Swaminathan and Sarawathi had preferred appeal against the same before the Appellate Tribunal Forfeited Property, New Delhi. The Tribunal by its order dated 06.07.2000 dismissed the appeal, but however invoking the provisions of Section 9(1) of SAFEMA gave an option to pay fine as provided therein in lieu of the property forfeited within a period of four weeks. It was also directed further that if the fine is paid then the forfeiture of property bearing No.494, Rayavaram Extension, Thottipalayam, Tirupur stands vacated and the property shall stand released. It was also directed further that if the fine is paid then the forfeiture of property bearing No.494, Rayavaram Extension, Thottipalayam, Tirupur stands vacated and the property shall stand released. It is not disputed that the fine amount has not been paid. 13. However a Tender Cum Auction Sale notice was issued for sale of immoveable property forfeited by the Competent Authority under the SAFEMA, 1976. The description of the property is as follows:- “House Site at New T.S.No.128/ Block No.53/ Ward K, (Old T.S.No.494/ DTP/ 171/65, Site No.119) Rayavaram Extension, Thottipalayam, Tiruppur” with the Buildings thereon.” 14. The description given in the said notice clearly mentions T.S.No.494 Rayavaram Extension, Thottipalayam, Tirupur, the property which was released by the Tribunal under Section 9(1). It is the case of the 1st respondent that as per Section 13 of SAFEMA, no notice or order issued held to be invalid for error in description. It is stated that the property owned by Swaminathan is T.S.No.494 and not T.S.No.484 as described in the notification and order and that the same was noticed when actual possession was taken. For better appreciation, the provision of Section 13 SAFEMA is extracted hereunder:- “Section 13: Notice or order not to be invalid for error in description – No notice issued or served, no declaration made, and no order passed, under this Act shall be deemed to be invalid by reason of any error in the description of the property or person mentioned therein if such property or person is identifiable from the description so mentioned.” 15. A plain reading of the said provision clearly states that when there is an error in the description of property, the same need not be held invalid if the property is identifiable from the description mentioned therein. A perusal of the notice under Section 6(1) as well as the order under Section 7(1), it is seen that the property, that has been finally forfeited, is House site at T.S.No.484 Rayavaram Extension, Thottipalayam, Tirupur owned by Mr.M.Swaminathan. It is not the case of the appellant that the notice or order of the competent authority is invalid due to non description of property. But placed reliance of the order of the Tribunal that from the order of forfeiture, the property T.S.No.494 Rayavaram Extension, Thottipalayam, Tirupur has been released. Hence Section 13 of SAFEMA cannot be pressed to the aid of the 1st respondent. But placed reliance of the order of the Tribunal that from the order of forfeiture, the property T.S.No.494 Rayavaram Extension, Thottipalayam, Tirupur has been released. Hence Section 13 of SAFEMA cannot be pressed to the aid of the 1st respondent. As per Section 13, only if the property is identifiable from the description given therein, and if there is an error in the description, then it will not be invalid. The property has not been described by its boundaries and only Town Survey number has been given. If, according to the 1st respondent, the town survey number has been wrongly given in the description, it is a question as to how the property could have been identified based on the description given in the said notice or order. Hence, the provision of Section 13 SAFEMA could not be of assistance to the 1st respondent. Therefore, the reasonings and findings arrived at by the Learned Single Judge that Section 13 of SAFEMA would save the forfeiture is wholly erroneous and is liable to be setaside. 16. Even according to the 1st respondent, there has been a mistake in the description of the property. As pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, as per Section 20, mistakes can be rectified only within a period of one year and therefore, at this distance of time, the 1st respondent has no locus-standi to say that the mistake has to be rectified. For better appreciation, the said provision is extracted hereunder: “Section 20: Rectification of mistakes:-With a view to rectifying any mistakes apparent from record, the competent authority or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, may amend any order made by it within a period of one year from the date of the order.” 17. That apart even if it can be rectified by the 1st respondent it would be of no avail to it, as the order of the Appellate Tribunal has specifically released the property and without amendment to the same the 1st respondent cannot exercise its power. However, Section 20 of SAFEMA would stand in the way, as the period of one year has been prescribed for rectification of mistake. The learned Single has not appreciated this aspect viz., bar under Section 20 of SAFEMA. Hence, even on this aspect, the impugned order is liable to be interfered. 18. However, Section 20 of SAFEMA would stand in the way, as the period of one year has been prescribed for rectification of mistake. The learned Single has not appreciated this aspect viz., bar under Section 20 of SAFEMA. Hence, even on this aspect, the impugned order is liable to be interfered. 18. In view of the above reasonings and findings, we have arrived at, we setaside the impugned order made in Rev.No.194 of 2012 in W.P.No.18185 of 2012, dated 10.04.2014 and consequently, allow the Writ petition quashing the Tender cum Auction Notice dated 12.07.2012 and other consequential proceedings. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.