In such circumstances, the orders of the Tribunal, to the extent to which it relates to the writ petitioners, are confirmed and these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [A.S.M, J.] [S.M, J.]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.03.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
W.P.Nos. 10845 & 8454 of 2001 and
WVMP No. 211 of 2008
W.P.No. 10845 of 2001
Sheik Kamal
S/o. S.S.A.Shakul Hameed,
West Street, Keelakarai
.. Petitioner
vs
1.The Competent Authority,
Smugglers, Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Properties) Act, Chennai.
2.The Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi.
.. Respondents
Prayer in W.P.No. 10845 of 2021: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi in the order dated 31.01.2001 made in
FPA.No.72/Mds/95 confirming the findings of the Competent Authority, Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, Chennai in OCA/MDS/348-351/76 dated 2.2.2000 and quash the same.
W.P.No. 8454 of 2001
Hussain Jalal @ Hussain
S/o. S.S.A. Shakul Hameed,
14, Ethiraj Lane,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
.. Petitioner
vs
1.The Competent Authority,
Smugglers, Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Properties) Act, Chennai.
2.The Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi.
.. Respondents
Prayer in W.P.No. 8454 of 2021: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi in the order dated 31.1.2001 made in
FPA.No.67/Mds/95 confirming the findings of the Competent Authority,
Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, Chennai in OCA/MDS/348-352/76 dated 2.2.2000 and quash the same.
For Petitioner
:
Mr.B.Kumar
Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Ramachandran
(in both writ petitions)
For Respondents
:
Mr.ARL.Sundaresan
Additional Solicitor General assisted by
Mr.B.Rabu Manohar, SCGPC
for R1 R2 – Tribunal
(in WP 10845/2001)
Mr.ARL.Sundaresan
Additional Solicitor General assisted by
Ms.Sushma, SPC for R1
R2 – Tribunal
(in WP 8454/2001)
COMMON ORDER
(Made by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH, J.)
The challenge is to a common order of the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi, dated 31.1.2001, confirming the findings of the Competent Authority, Smugglers and Foreign Exchange
Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, Chennai in OCA/MDS/348352/76 dated 2.2.2000.
2. The petitioners are sons of detenu, Shakul Hameed, who had passed away on 17.10.1994. The petitioners as well as their father / detenu are all persons affected as per Section (2) of the Smugglers and
Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (Act).
Notices under Section 6(1) had been issued on 09.02.1997 to all three.
3. We are concerned specifically with the notices issued to the writ petitioners, proposing to forfeit the following lands.
SCHEDULE
S.No. Description of the property Name of the present holder of property
1 2 3
Agricultural lands. S.No Extent G.R. Patta No.
Asst.
Classification
Village
959 140/2 5.22
20.88
Wet land
Nallirukkai Sri Shaik Kamal
959 140/1 1.08
4.32
-do-
959 139/1 2.20
Value of the above Rs.10,000.
1.78
Dry land
SCHEDULE
S.No. Description of the property Name of the present holder of property
1 2 3
Agricultural lands. G.R. Patta No.
S.No.
Extent
Asst.
Classification
Village
960
146/1B
0.69
2.76
Wet lands
Nallirukkai Sri
960
83/1A
0.72
3.60
“
960
73/6A
0.34
1.70
“
960
64/5A
0.46
2.30
“
960
59/2A
0.40
2.00
“
960
86/1A
0.70
3.60
“
960
61/1A
2.03
10.15
“
Value of the above Rs.10,000.
4. The writ petitioners had, in response to the notices under Section 6(1), tendered explanations dated 31.3.1995 to the effect that they were minors when the properties had been acquired, acceding to the position that the acquisition had been in their names by the detenu. The competent authority thus forfeited the properties, being of the view that no valid explanation was tendered by them and there was a clear link established by the respondents qua the subject properties and the tainted money of the detenu.
5. The Tribunal confirmed the orders rendering a categoric finding of fact to the effect that the writ petitioners had no independent sources of income, and had also established no other sources by which the subject properties could have been acquired by them. It is assailing the aforesaid conclusions of fact that the present writ petitions have been filed.
6. We have heard Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, for
Mr.S.Ramachandran, for the petitioner and Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General, assisted by Mr.B.Rabu Manohar, SCGPC and Ms.Sushma, learned Senior Panel Counsel, for R1.
7. The facts are not in dispute, in that the subject properties, even as per the explanation tendered by the writ petitioners, have been purchased in their names by detenu when they were minors. Though substantial stress has been laid upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Attorney General for India v Amratlal Prajivandas and other reported in AIR 1994 SC 2179, we are of the considered view that the judgment would not advance the case of the petitioners before us.
8. It is true that in the case of Attorney General (supra), the Supreme Court has made it clear that it is incumbent upon the competent authority to establish the link between the properties sought to be forfeited and the tainted funds of the detenu. In fact, they have gone to the extent of stating in paragraph 44 that ‘the idea is not to forfeit the independent properties of such relatives or associates which they may have acquired illegally but only to reach the properties of the convict/detenu or properties traceable to him, wherever they are, ignoring all the transactions with respect to those properties’.
9. These observations would come to the aid of properties that, though acquired illegally by the holder, could not be traced back to the tainted funds. Thus, in other words, even a property acquired illegally by a holder could be saved, if the competent authority was unable to establish a link to the funds of the detenu.
10. However, in the present case, even the explanation tendered by the writ petitioners is to the effect that the properties had been acquired only by the detenu, albeit in their names. These factual findings are concurrent, having been confirmed by the Tribunal as well, and the petitioners are not in a position to dislodge or disprove the same.
11. In fact, we had called for the records of the competent authority that have been produced before us by the respondents, wherein explanation dated 31.03.1995 tendered by the petitioners makes it crystal clear that they do not have any independent or other sources of income from which the subject properties might have been acquired by them.
12. In such circumstances, the orders of the Tribunal, to the extent to which it relates to the writ petitioners, are confirmed and these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[A.S.M, J.] [S.M, J.]
13.03.2026
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No ssm
To
1.The Competent Authority,
Smugglers, Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Properties) Act, Chennai.
2.The Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi.
DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J. and SUNDER MOHAN,J.
ssm 7
W.P.Nos. 10845 & 8454 of 2001
13.03.2026
