ORDER : 1. Under assail is the order dated 29.11.1999 passed in FPA.No.11/MDS/96 and FPA.No.13/MDS/96 before the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited property, New Delhi. The unsuccessful appellants before the Appellate Tribunal have preferred the present writ petitions before this Court. 2. The case of the petitioners' is that their father Mr.S.A.Jawersha was detained under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [hereinafter referred to as “COFEPOSA”]. The fundamental rights of the citizen were suspended during the emergency period. Therefore, their father was unable to challenge the detention order, while he was under detention. However, he had challenged the same after revocation of emergency: (i) On 31.09.1976, show cause notice was issued to their father under Section 6(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (forfeiture of property) Act, 1976 [hereinafter referred to as “SAFEMA”] calling upon him to show cause as to why the properties could not be forfeited under Section 7(1) of the SAFEMA Act, as the properties were illegally acquired from the unexplained sources of income. S. No. Description of the property Name of the present holder of property (1) (2) (3) 1 Agricultural lands measuring 4.41 acres Shri J. Shajahan Shri J. Akbar Ali S. No. 180/1 -do- 78 cents S. No. 440/2B -do- 2.43 cents S. No. 464/1A -do- 90 cents S. No. 441/4A -do- 84 cents S. No. 464/2 -do- 44 cents S. No. 465/1 -do- 51 cents (ii) Similarly notices were also issued to the mother of the petitioners' and the same were received by both petitioners. The petitioners' parents have submitted detailed reply to the competent authority. The income derived by the writ petitioners were shown by their mother in their personal accounts, she had received cash gifts at the time of her marriage on 03.06.1995 and also received money from petitioners' maternal grand father. The properties purchased were again given on lease or rental basis and from the accrued income and interest subsequent properties were purchased. The competent authority rejected the explanations and statement of accounts offered by their mother and ordered forfeiture of properties. (iii) The petitioners have preferred an appeal before appellate Tribunal and have also filed an application to receive the additional evidence under Rule 15 of the SAFEMA. The appellate Tribunal heard the matter on 14.07.1999 and directed the competent authority to receive the additional evidence and record findings. (iii) The petitioners have preferred an appeal before appellate Tribunal and have also filed an application to receive the additional evidence under Rule 15 of the SAFEMA. The appellate Tribunal heard the matter on 14.07.1999 and directed the competent authority to receive the additional evidence and record findings. The Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 14.07.1999 held that no notice as per law was given to the writ petitioners as they were minors at that point of passing the forfeiture order and therefore fixed a personal hearing before the competent authority on 18.08.1999. (iv) Accordingly, the petitioners have appeared before the Competent authority through their lawyer and filed objection to forfeiture notice and also filed paper book consisting of documentary evidence to establish that the properties were purchased by their maternal grand father and their mother respectively when they were minors. The competent authority rejected the same on the ground that the petitioners have not established the source of the sources. They preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. (v) The appellate Tribunal heard the appeal on merits along with the applications and the paper book submitted by the petitioners before the competent authority and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 29.11.1999. Aggrieved over the same, unsuccessful appellants before the appellate Tribunal have hence preferred these writ petitioners. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the properties were purchased in the names of the petitioners, when they were minors by the maternal grand father, who was a rich landlord and donated lot of lands to the society and for social cause. The writ petitioners are minors at the time of service of notice under section 6(1) of the SAFEMA, the common order was passed under section 7(1) of the SAFEMA during that period the petitioners have attained majority, despite no fresh notices were issued to them. Furthermore, the burden of proof as contemplated under Section 8 of the SAFEMA were discharged by the petitioners and the same was not rebutted by the respondents: (i) He would further submit that the appellate Tribunal and the competent authority have not stated any material fact to arrive at a reason to believe that properties acquired out of ill-gotten money in violation of the Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The authorities ought to have conducted through investigation under Section 18 of the SAFEMA before passing the final orders and therefore, the entire proceedings and order are bad in law. 4. Mr.AR.L.Sunderasan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the second respondent would oppose by stating that if the properties are acquired by raising loan, gifts, borrowals etc., the genuineness of those sources have to be established in entirety. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioners' father under Section 6(1) of SAFEMA calling upon him to show cause as to why the properties should not be forfeited under Section 7(1) of SAFEMA, for the properties illegally acquired from the unexplained source of income. The copy of the notice under Section 6(1) of SAFEMA was also communicated to the petitioners and to their mother: (i) The learned Additional Solicitor General of India would further submit that since the writ petitioners and their mother were received notices and they are bound to participate in the process of enquiry before the competent authority and bound to discharge their burden of proof under Section 8 of the SAFEMA. But the petitioners have failed to discharge their burden of proof and also failed to prove that their grand father gave them money for the purchase of properties in their names. No documentary or any other proof was placed before the competent authority or before the appellate Tribunal to prove their sources of money. 5. We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. On perusal of records reveals that writ petitioners herein viz., Thiru.Shajahan and Thiru.Akbar Ali sons of Thiru.S.A.Jawersha have preferred two appeals jointly in FPA.No.11/MDS/96 and FPA.No.13/MDS/96 before the appellate Tribunal, a common order came to be passed by the Tribunal that the properties ordered to be forfeited by the competent authority, Chennai: (i) Thiru.S.A.Jawersha was detained under the provisions of COFEPOSA. On 31.09.1976, the competent authority issued notice under Section 6(1) of the SAFEMA, to the detenue and notices under Section 6(2) were issued to his wife and to his sons viz., the writ petitioners herein. The common order under Section 7(1) of the SAFEMA forfeiting the properties held inter alia in the names of the writ petitioners was passed on 29.11.1995. 7. The common order under Section 7(1) of the SAFEMA forfeiting the properties held inter alia in the names of the writ petitioners was passed on 29.11.1995. 7. The Appellate Tribunal held that no documentary or any other proof was produced before the competent authority that the writ petitioners maternal grand father had paid the money for purchase of those landed properties. There was no evidence of sources of amounts paid for the purpose by the two relatives namely A.K.Syed Mohammed and K.A.Shahul Hameed. No independent sources of funds, if any, held by the writ petitioners mother have been furnished or explained. 8. At this juncture, it is relevant to cite the definition under Section 3(1)(c)(iii) and Section 8 Burden of Proof of the SAFEMA Act :- “ 3. Definitions .—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— (c) “illegally acquired property” in relation to any person to whom this Act applies, means— (iii) any property acquired by such person, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, wholly or partly out of or by means of any income, earnings or assets the source of which cannot be proved and which cannot be shown to be attributable to any act or thing done in respect of any matter in relation to which Parliament has no power to make laws; or 8. Burden of proof —In any proceedings under this Act, the burden of proving that any property specified in the notice served under section 6 is not illegally acquired property shall be on the person affected.” 9. As per definition Section 3(1)(c)(iii) of SAFEMA and as per the Section 8 of SAFEMA the burden of proof proving that any property specified in notices served under section 6 is not illegally acquired property shall be on the persons affected. In order to provide an opportunity to the writ petitioners, the appellate Tribunal vide order dated 14.07.1999 directed the writ petitioners to appear before the competent Authority to submit their documents which they desired to rely upon. On 18.08.1999, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners have appeared and made submissions before the Competent Authority and the petitioners' have also appeared for personal hearing. The competent Authority observed that the sale deeds mentioned the names of the persons who made payments and the mode of payments. On 18.08.1999, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners have appeared and made submissions before the Competent Authority and the petitioners' have also appeared for personal hearing. The competent Authority observed that the sale deeds mentioned the names of the persons who made payments and the mode of payments. However, those documents only mentioned the names of the writ petitioners' mother and two relatives, A.K.Syed Moihammed and K.A.Shahul Hameed. No documentary evidence was produced before the competent authority to prove that the petitioners' maternal grand father paid the money. 10. Thus, the SAFEMA does not permit the petitioners to claim that the funds for purchsing the landed properties ordered to be forfeited were provided by their grand parents and other relatives without substantiating these claims, the burden of proof lies on the petitioners' and they have failed to discharge their burden as required under Section 8 of the SAFEMA. 11. We are of the considered opinion that the competent authority as well as the appellate Tribunal provided the petitioners with full opportunities to prove the sources of income, despite this they have failed to prove the legality of sources of investments in the properties ordered to be forfeited. Therefore, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the findings of the appellate Tribunal. The grounds raised by the writ petitioners have no merits for consideration and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, both the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.