Saleema Begum V. The Union of India and 6 others

WP/28094/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Saleema Begum, the petitioner, challenging the provisional attachment of her properties and seizure of documents by various respondents under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The petitioner argued that the actions taken were illegal, arbitrary, and violated principles of natural justice and constitutional rights. The court considered the procedural aspects of the Benami Property Act, particularly the roles and powers of the Initiating Officer and the Adjudicating Authority in property attachment and adjudication. The court's decision focused on ensuring the petitioner had access to necessary documents to prepare an effective defense before the Adjudicating Authority.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 767084 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B MUKHERJEE; B NARASIMHA SARMA; GP FOR HOME
• Assessee Lawyers: MOHAN SAI
• Keywords: Benami property; Mandamus; Natural Justice; Provisional attachment; Unconstitutional; Writ petition
• Section: 226; 24(5); 26(3); 24(4)(b)(i)

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA Saleema Begum, Wo. IMd Qayyum Ali [ 3276 ] ...PETITIONER Between: AND 1. The Union of lndia, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Shastri Bhavan, 4th Floor, New Delhi.- 2. The Union of lndia, Rep. !y Assistant Commissioner, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Depa(ment, ACIT BPU, Hyderabad. 3. The-Adjudicating Authority, Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, Office of the Competent Authority (Safem(FOP) and'NDpSA), UTSAV, Department. of Revenue, Ministry of Finace, 64/i, G.N. Cheity Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-6000 17. 4. The,Officer of the lnitiating Officer and Assistant Commissioner of lncome- taax, Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Yanam, District of Puducherry, 3rd Floor, Aayaka-Bhavan, Bashleerbagh, r i[:::::X\"t; officer, Manisha rhomar, rRS, ACrr (BpU), Hyderabad, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Basheerbad Hyderabad. 6. TheApproving Authority, S.V. Siva Prasad, tRS, ACTT (BpU), Hyderabad, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 7. The Special lnvestigation Team (SlT), Rep. by its Asst. Commissioner of Police, Beside Traffic Control Room, Opp Kahnjali, Beside L.B. Stadium, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under A(icle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT PETITION NO: 28094 OF 2022 the writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of the 7th Respondent in not providing all the documents to the petitioner and attaching all the properties by the Respondents No.3 to 5 without considering the Representation dated 04.03.2022 made by the petitioner to the Sth Respondent by passing the impugned orders dated 30.03'2022, 31.o3.2022, 11.04.2022 and 12.o4.2022 and thg referring the same to the 3rd Respondent vide corrigendum Dated 11.04.2022 and the consequential notices dated 04.05.2022 and 25.04.2022, to the petitioner is bad in Law as illegal,. improper, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 and the rules framed there under, violative of Principles of Natural Justice, voilative of Articles 14,21 and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia, u n constitutiona I and set aside the same, by holding that the procedure adopted by the Respondents with regard to seizure of all documents belonged to the Petitioner is irrational and unsustainable in the eye of law, and pass such other order or ordets that this Honble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. lt is also just and necessary that this Honble court may be pleased to grant stay all further proceedings pertaining to the corrigendum dated 11.04.2022 which was refered to the Respondent No.3 by duly suspending the orders u/s 24(4)(bxi) of PBPT Act, 19BB dated 30.03 2022, 31.03.2022, 11 04-2022 and 12'04 2022' Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.7 to release the original documents of the Petitioner that are stated in the affidavit in the tabular form, in order to substantiate the claims of the Petitioner Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay all further proceedings pertaining to the Corrigendum dated 11.04.2022 which was refered to the Respondent No.3 by duly suspending the i lA NO: 1 OF 2022 lA NO: 2 OF 2022 orders U/s 24(4)(b)(i) of PBPT Act, 1988 dated 30.03.2022, 31.03,2022, 1 1.04.2022 and 12.04.2022. Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. MOHAN SAI appearing on behalf of M/s. CH VENKAT RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Mr. B. MUKHERJEE representing Mr. NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAo(ASSGI) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6 : Mr. B. NARASIMHA SARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : GP FOR HOME THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER: ./ 'l'l IE FION'BI-I:'f HII CIIIEF IUSTICE TJIIAI BHIJYAN AND 1'HE HON'BLE MRS. IT] ICE SUREPAI-LI NANDA W.P.No. I of 2022 ORDEB, 1'.. t1'\" l-u b.'\" tt w.l. ltt,rr.t I */ Bhqanl Heard Mr. Mohan Sai. learnccl counscl appearing on behalf of Mr. Ch.Venkat Raman, lcarned counsel lor the petltioner; Mr. B.N{ukheliee, iearned counsei represenrins NIr. Namavarapu Rajeshwer l{a,r, learned Assistant S<;licitor (lcne r:al of India for respofldcnt No.1; and N{r. ll.Narasimha Sarma, learned Standing Counscl for rhe Income Tax Department appearing for respondcnts t . o.2 to 6. 2. Petidoncr is aggricved by ordcrs dated 30.03.2C)ZZ, 31..03.2022, 11 .04.2022 aod 1.2.04.2022 passed by responder.rt No.5 under Scction 24(4)(b)(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Properry Transactions t ct, 1988, as amended (briefly 'Bcnan.ri Propety Act' hereina[tcr). 3. By thc aforesaid orders, resporrdent No.5 exercising powers under Section 18(2) o[ the Benami Properw .A.ct has provisionally atached thc properties menrioned 111 the aforesaid ordcrs till such rime ordets are passed by the Adjudicating Authotitl,under Scctron 26(3) of the Benami Property Act. 4. Therea[ter, refercnce r,as made ro tl.re , djuclicating Authority under Secrion 24(5) of the lJenami property Act, following which thc Adjudicatrng ALrthori6, issued nodce to the petrtioner. 5. Learned counsci for the periuoner submits that the relevant documents were seized by Special Invcsrigation 'fearn ied by the Assistant Commissioner oI Po]ice tollowing cncounter on 08.08.2016 in which the petitioner's brother az1, Nayeemuddin, who was the petirioner in W.P.No.27803 of 2022 and, 27813 of 2022, was killed. 'Ihe seized documents include several sale deeds aS weil as link documents. In rhe absence of the above documents, petitioner was handicapped in making eflective de fence before the provisional attachmeflt orders were passed. She would continue to be handicapped before the Adjudicaung Authoriry unless and until .,).. / ., the rcler-ant documents are madc available to her ior c ffective delencc 6. At this stage, wc mzy refer to relevant provisions o[ the Benami Irroperty Act. Attachment, adjudication and conEscation are dealt with Chaprer-IV of the Benami Property Act. Under Sub- Section (3) of Secuon 24 wherc the Initiating Oihcer is o[ the opinion that the person in possession o[ the property held .benami, may ahcnate rhe property, he may with the approval ol the approving authorin, provisionally attach the properry for a pcriod not exceeding 90 days. Where the Initrating Officer passes an order continuing the provisional attachment by exercising power under Sub-Secuon (4) of Section 24, he shalt wrrhin 15 days from thc date of attachment draw up a statement of the case and refer it to the Adjudicaung Aurhoriry. 7 . Adjudicauon of benami properry is dealt with in Secrion 26. )7e are concerned wrth Sub-Secrion (3) of Section 26, which reads as under: \"(3) l'hc - djudicating r uthority shall, after, (a) considering thc replr., if an , ro tllc nodce issued under sub-section ( 1); (b) Making or causing to be madc such inquities and calling fot such rcporrs or evidence as it deems 6t; and (c) taking into account al[ relevant materials, ptovide an opportunity of being heatd to the person specified as a benamrdar therein, the Initiat.ing Officer, and any other person who claims to be the or.vnet of the property, and, thereafter, pass an ordcr_ (i) holdrng the propcrty nor ro bc a benami properry and ter.oking rhe atachmcnt order: of (ri) holding rhe properq, to be a bcrrami propety and confirm.ing the attachmcnr ortler, in all other cases.\" Adjudicating Authoriry cmpowefcd to rnakc ()r causc to be IS made inquiries and to call lor reports or e .iclcncc as it deems fit. It has also the authority to take inro accounr all relevant materials besides reply of the noticce and thercafter, to take a decision one way or the other holding rhe propcrry nor to be a benami property and revoking the artachmcnt order or holding the properry ro bc a benami propcrrv and confirming the attachment order. : :.1: : 8. From a perusal o[ the abor.e, it is scen thar the ' ' l ti I 9. (ionsiderrng thc lacr that peritioner before us is the sister oF latc Nayecmuddin, who was rhc petirioner in W.p.No.27g03 ot 2022 and 27813 oF 2022 being killed in encounter, and lacing stringent provisrons of the Benami properry Act, it would meet rhe ends of iusticc if the adjudicating authoriry, on reccipt of application o[ thc petitioner, calls for the relevanr docume nts/evidencc from rhe authorities including the Special Invesdgaung ream and thcreafter hand over copics of the same to the peutioner so a-{ ro enable her to make effecdve defence. 10. Acc<>rdinglv and thc light o[ the above, the ln { t folk;rving directons are issued: (, Iretitioner shall submit application before rhe Adiudicating Authority wirhin tu,o (02) weeks from today mentioning therein rhc documents required for her defence and in whose custody the documents are being kept. (ii) On receipt of such application, the Adjudicating Authority shall requisition thc relevant documents/evidence from the concerncd authorities. t 6 (ut) On receipt of thc documents/evrdencc by the Adjudicaung Authoriq,, pcririoner or her authorised representadve shall be permined to go through the same and on their request, photocopies o[ such documcnts m^y be made available to the petitioner or her authorized reprcsentative. (i\") Thereafter, petrtioner shall filc her reply to the nodce issued by the Ad judicating Aut-hority (\") Adjudicating Authoriw shall consrdcr thc petitioner's repiy and all other materials on record and t-hereafter pass an order Section (3) of Secrion 26 Properry Act. 1n teflI]S of the of Sub- Benami 17. This disposes o[ the [rit petition. However, there shall be no order as to costs As a sequel, miscellaneous peritions, pending if any, stand closed. SD/.K.SHYLKE DEPUTY REGIST //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Shastri Bhavan,4th Floor, Union of lndia, New Delhi. 2. The Assistant Commissioner, Ministry of Finance, lncome Tax Department, ACIT BPU, Union of lndia, Hyderabad. I To, .-Colutd* 2 4. 5. A 7 B. o 10 11 12 13 SB The Adjudicating Authority, Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, '1988, Office of the Competent Authority (Safem(FOp) and NDpSA), UTSAV, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, 64/1, G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-600017. The Officer of the lnitiating Officer and Assistant Commissioner of lncome{ax, Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Yanam, District of Puducherry, 3rd Floor, Aayaka-Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-4. The lnitiating Officer, Manisha Thomar, lRS, ACIT (BpU), Hyderabad, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Basheerbad Hyderabad. The Approving Authority, S.V. Siva Prasad, lRS, ACTT (BpU), Hyderabad, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. The Asst. Commissioner of Police, Special lnvestigation Team (SlT), Beside Traffic Conlrol Room, Opp Kalanjali, Beside L.B. Stadium, Hyderabad One CC to SRl. CH VENKAT RAMAN Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI B NARSIMHA SARMA, Advocate.[OpUC] One CC to SRl. NAIMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO(ASSG|) Advocate loPUcl Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Courtfor the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT). Two CD Copies One Spare Copy t HIGH COURT DATED:2710712022 I o 3t {) {. 1 Btt, N[ c) i. i ORDER WP.No.28094 of 2022 wRrT PETTTTON tS DISPOSED OF WITHOUT COSF If Lr'; z-alul>->- ry, "