Haseena Begum V. The Union of India and 5 others

WP/27813/2022

AI Insights

The case involves two writ petitions filed by Syed Sultana and another petitioner against the Union of India and other respondents concerning orders passed under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The petitioners challenged the provisional attachment of their properties, arguing that the orders were passed without considering their requests and violated principles of natural justice and various articles of the Constitution. The court's decision focused on ensuring the petitioners had access to necessary documents to prepare an effective defense before the Adjudicating Authority.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 736723 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: NAMAVARAPU RAO; B NARASIMHA SARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: CH VENKAT RAMAN
• Keywords: Benami property; Mandamus; Natural Justice; Provisional attachment; Violation of Principles
• Section: 151 CPC; 26(3); 24(4)(b)(i)

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION NOS: 27803 AND 27813 0F 2022 AND 1 The Union of lndia, Rep. Department of Revenue, by Sh Principal Secretary, Ministry of Finance, astri Bhavan, 4th Floor, New Delhi. ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS 2. The Union oflndia, Rep by_,l.ss1s_tant Commissioner, Ministry of Finance, lncome Tax Department, ACIT BPU, Hyderabad. 3. TheAdjudicating Aqthority, Prohibition of Benami property Transaction Act, 1 988, Office of the Competent Authority Safem (FOp)'and' N DPSA,'UTSAV', Pepartment of Revenue, Ministry of Firiace, 64i1, c.i{. Chetty Rodd, T. Nagar, Chennai-600017. 4. The officer of the lnitiating officer and Assistant commissioner of Income-tax, Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Andhra pradesh, fetengani and - - ' Yanam, Diskict of Puducherry, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, ea\"sneerbagh, Hyderabad4. 5. The Initiating Officer, Manisha Thomar, lRS, ACIT (BpU), Hyderabad, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 6. The Approving Authority, S.V. Siva plagad, lRS, Aar (BpU), Hyderabad, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. W.P.No.27803 of 2022 Between: Syed Sultana, Wo. Lateif Pasha, Aged about 52, Occ; House-Wife, R/o. H.No. 35_ 193, Prakashnagar, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District. Pt-'tition Under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High'co\"urt may oe pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particurarry o rie in the natuie of the writ of Mandamus, by decraring the action of ine Respondent Nos. s ,n; 5 i\" Passing the orders us 2ag)g)(i) of pBpr Act, 1988 dated 26.03.2022 unilatera lly without consideration of the contents of request letter dated 04.03.2c'22 of the Petitioner is highly illegal arbitrary and contrary to the law and violation of Principles of Natural Justice, and also referring flie same to the Respon(lent No.3 vide corrigendum dated 1 1.04.2022 and cJnsequential Notice Dated 2 5.04.2022 issued by Respondent No.3 to the petitioner is bad in raw, violation of principles of Natural Justice and also violation in violation of Articles 14, 19,2'1 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia. |.A.NO:1 OF 2022 Pr:tition Under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the -affidavit filed in support of the petition, ine Higtr court may uL p[r.\"d-t\" stay of all further proceedings pertaining to the corrigendum oateo ir.oq.iozz which was referred to the Respondent No.3 by dury suspending the orders U/s 24(4)(b)t:i) of PBPT Act, 1988 dated 26.03.20i2, penaing dispoiar of the above writ petition. l.A.NO:4 OF 2022 Prtition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it\"'e Hign court may oe pleaseJ to direct the Respondent No.7, to provide the certiiied copies of fti\"-\"iigi\"\"r documents to the petitioner as stated in the tabular form of this affidavit, in o\"rder to substantiate the claims of the petitioner, pending disposar of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.CH.VENKAT RAMAN counsel for the Respondent No.1 : sRI.NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAo(Asscr) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6 : SRI.B.NARASIMHA SARMA W.P.NO: 2781 3 0F 2022 Betweerr: I:.qq,:: B99,um, Wo. Late Khaja Nayeemuddin, Aged about 42, Occ House_Wife, R/o. H.No. 2-5-101 , Jamkhangunda, rihongir rown inJ rrrrrno\"i, i'r\"rgonl, b'i.iriiltl ...PETITIONER AND 1 It]:_UI9! of lndia, Rep qy princfrat Secretary, Ministry of Finance, u,->panment ot Revenue, Shastri Bhavan, 4th Floor, New Delhi. 2. The Assistant Commissioner, Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, lncome Tax Department, 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, 64/1, G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-60001 7. 4. The officer of the lnitiating Officer and Assistant Commissioner of lncome- taax, Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Andhra pradesh, Telengana and Yanam, District of Puducherry, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-4, 5. The lnitiating Officer, Manisha Thomar, lRS, ACIT (BpU), Hyderabad, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 6. The Approving Authority, S.V. Siva Prasad, lRS, ACIT (BpU), Hyderabad, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS LA.NO:I OF 2022 |.A.NO:4 OF 2022 Petition Under Article 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 natuie of the writ of Mandamus, by declaring the action of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 5 in Passing the orders Uis 2a( )(b)(i) of PBPT Act, .t9BB dated 30.03.2022 unilaterally without consideration of the contents of request letter dated 04.03.2022 of the Petitioner is highly illegal arbitrary and contrary to the law and violation of Principles of Natural Justice, and also referring the same to the Respondent No.3 vide corrigendum dated 1 1.04.2022 and consequential Notice Dated 25.04.2022 issued by Respondent No.3 to the petitioner is bad in law, violation of principles of Natural Justice and also violation in violation of Articles 14, 19,21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of India. 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 stay of all further proceedings pertaining to the corrigendum dated 1 1.04.2022 which was referred to the Respondent No..3 by duly suspending the orders U/s 24(4)(bxi) of PBPT Act, 1988 dated 30.03.2022, pending disposat of the above writ petition. 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 provide the copies of the original documents of the Petitioner that are stated in the para - 6 of the affidavit in the tabular form, in order to substantiate the claims of the Petitioner, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.CH.VENKAT RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRt.NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO(ASSGI) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6 : SRI.B.NARASIMHA SARMA The Court made the following COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE THE CI{IEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION Nos.278O3 & 27813 of 2022 COMMON ORDER: (Per the llon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyart) Heard Mr. Mohan Sai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M r. Ch.Venkat Raman, Iearned counsel for the l)etitioners; Mr. B.Mukherjce, Iearned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Namava-rapu Rajeshwar Rao, learned Assistant llolicitor (ieneral o[ Irrdia for respondent No.1 and lvlr. B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for respondent l os.2 to 6. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by orders dated '),6.O3.2022 & 30.03.2022 respectively passed by respondent ),1o.5 under Section 24(4)(b)(i) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, as amended (briefly referred to hereinafter as the 'Benami Property Act'). 3. By the aforesaid orders, 5th respondent exercising powers under Section 1B(2) of thc Benami Property Act has / I1':/ '''l ' 't l1'./', ros.-r;50.i .i jlr',!l.I t)f 2i)-..) provisionally attached thc prc)pcrties rrrenlioned in rhe aforesaid orders till such tin-ie orriers ;rre passer-l b-y thr: Acljudicatirrg Authority under Section 2r:(3) of the Renami Property Act. 1. Thereafter relerence rvas made to the Adjudicating Aeithoritl' under Section 2a$) ol the Benami l)r-opr:r't.,' Act. foilorving r.r'hich the Adjudicating Authorit.r' issr:erd noticc to the petitic'rne rs. 5. Learned counsei for the petiiir-'ri-rers; submits that the relevant documents were seized by Special lnvcsti5latiori Team led by the Assistant Commissioner of Police followini3 encounter on 08.08.2016 in which son-in'law of petitioner in W.P.No.27803 of 2022 and husband of' the petitioner 1n W.P.No.27B 13 ol 2022 rvere killed. The seized documents include several sale deeds as well as link documents. In the absence of the above documents. peLitioners were handicapped 1n making effective defence before the provisional attachment orders were passed. They would continue to be handicapped before the Adjudicating Authority -l HCJ & SN.,T W.P.Nos.278O3 & 2781 3 of 2022 L.niess and until the relevant documents are made {rvailable t,; them for their eflective delence. 6. At this stage, we may refer to relevant provisions cf the Benami Property Act. Attachment, adjudication and confiscation are dealt with Chapter-lV of the Benami Property frct. Urrder Sub Section (3) of Section 24 where the Initiating ()fficer is ol the opinion that the person in possession of the [)roperl.y held 'benami' may alienate the property, he may with the approval of the approving authority provisionally attach the propertv for a period not exceeding 9O days. Where the Initiating Ofiicer passes an order continuing the provisional ztttachment by exercising power under Sub-Section (4) of []ection 24. he shall within 15 days from the date of erttachment draw up a statement of the case and refer it to the l djudicating Authority. 7 . Adjudication of benami property is dealt with in llection 26. We are concerned with Sub-Section (3) of Section .t 126, which reads as under: 3 ) HCJ & S, I / IrVl /). j[or: .-,161).] & .j,,8_l.l (r'202:) \"(3) The Adjudicating Authority shail, after- (a) considering the reply, if an;,. to the notice issued under sub-section (1); (b) Making or causing to be made such inquiries and calling for such reports oi evidence as it deems lit; arrd (c) taking into account all relevant materials, provide an opportunity of being hcard t<.r the pcrson spccified as a benamida-r therein, the initiating Officer, and erry other person 'who clairns to be re ouner of t.he propert5r, ald, thereafter, pass an order- (i) holding tJle property not to be a benami property arrd revoking the attachment order; or (ir) holding the property to be a benami property and confirming the attachment order, in all other cases.\" 8. From a perusal of the above, it is seen that the Adjudicating Authority is empowered to marke or cause to be made inquiries and to call for reports or evidence as it deems fit. It has also the authority to take into account all relevant materials besides repiy ol the noticee and thereafter to take a decision one way or the other holding the property not to be a benami property and revoking the attachment order or HCJ & SAU W.P.Nos.27BO3 & 27813 of 2022 holdir-rg the property to be a benami property and conlirming the attachmcnt order 9. Considering the fact that petitioners before us are r,r.idows ald facing stringent provision s of the Benami Froperty Act, it r,r,ould meet the ends of justice if the F.djudicating Authority on rcceipt of application of the p,etitioners call lor the relevant documents/evidence lrom authorised authorities including the Special Investigation 'I'eam and thereafter hand over copies of the same to the pretitioners so as to enable them to make effective defence. 10. Accordingly and in the light of the above, the follorving directions are issued: (i) Petitioners shall submit application(s) before the Adjudicating Authority within two (O2) weeks from today mentioning therein the documents required for their defence and in whose custody the documents are being kept. - l/(,/, sr.,i l1'.l'], rr.s.l'ZE0.l .1 -?;:8 i.i .-r.r llr,tir (ii) Or-r receipt of such application(s), the Ad.ludicating Authority shall requisition the relevant documents,/evidence from the concerned authorities. (iii) On receipt of the documents/ evidence by the Adj udicating Authorit-y, petitiorlers or their authorised representatii,e shall be permitted to go through the same and on their request, photo copies of such documents may be made available to the petitioners or their authorised representative. (iv) 1'hereafter, petitioners shall filr: their reply to the notice issued by the Adjudica.ting Authority (\") Adjudicating Authorit5r shall consider their reply ar-rd all other materials on record and thereafter pass an order in terms of Sub- Section (3) of Section 26 of the Benami Property Act. I i. This disposes of the trvo Writ Petitions. However, there shall be no order as to costs. --/ HC] & SNJ W.P.Nos.27803 & 27813 of 2022 12. As a sequel, miscelletneous applications pending, if any, in thesc two Writ Petitions, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/.B.SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR .t_ sEcTroN brrrceR To S.A SB 1. The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Shastri Blravan, 4th Floor, Union of India at New Delhi. 2. The Assistant Commissioner, Union of India, Ministry of Finance, lncome Tax D,spartment, ACIT BPU, Hyderabad. 3. The Adjudicating Authority, Prohibition of Benami property Transaction Act, '1988, Office of the Competent Authority (Safem(FOp) and NDpSA), UTSAV, D,-.partment of Revenue, Ministry of Finace, 64/1, G.N. Chetty 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, Telengana and Yanam, Diskict of Puducherry, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, H'Tderabad-4. 5. The lnitiating Officer, Manisha Thomar, tRS, ACIT (BpU), Hyderabad, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 6. The Ap.proving Authority, S.V. Siva prasad, lRS, ACIT (BpU), Hyderabad, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 7. One CC to SRI.CH.VENKAT RAMAN, Advocate tOpUCl 8. One CC to SRI.NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO (ASSGI) tOpUCl 9. One CC to SRI.B.NARAS|MHA SARMA, Advocate (OPUC) '1O.Two CD Copies 11.Orre spare copy HIGH COURT DATtlD:0810712022 COMMON ORDER WP.trlos.27803 AND 27813 of 20 /-r }. 1 E L4rir .-, ;to v s 4 () -[ UJ F ar'Q .'l DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETTTION'S WITHIOUT COSTS. wlk "