ORDER
1. The appellants are legal heirs of Shri K. K. Kuncheria who was detained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (the COFEPOSA). They have preferred this appeal against the order under section 7(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (the SAFEMA), passed by the competent authority on October 31, 1995.
2. Shri K. K. Kuncheria was detained under the provisions of the COFEPOSA on December 19, 1974. The competent authority issued notice dated September 2, 1980, under section 6(1) of the SAFEMA to the detenue to show cause why assets of 1 acre 36 cents of land with a building in Survey No. 811/1-I in Thrikodithanam village, Chenganacheri, and the right, title and interest in New City Bankers could not be forfeited as illegally acquired properties. To the said notice the detenue replied stating that the said land was purchased in the year 1970 with the funds furnished by one Chanda Pillai and that the same was released in favour of Chanda Pillai in the year 1973 and was later sold by him to the relatives of the detenue in the year 1981 and, hence, the said property is not an illegally acquired property. His plea relating to the second item is not relevant, as no arguments were advanced in respect of the second item.
3. After considering the documents produced by the detenue and the contentions raised by him, the competent authority directed forfeiture of properties of the detenue, vide order dated October 31, 1995.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant confined her contentions only with regard to the land with building and did not advance any arguments in respect of the right, title and interest in New City Bankers. She firstly contended that Shri Kuncheria was detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (the MISA) and not under the COFEPOSA and that he was detained on October 5, 1974, much before the COFEPOSA came into force. The Deputy Director appearing for the competent authority produced the records in which our attention was drawn to a letter of the Enforcement Directorate, dated March 3, 1976, addressed to the competent authority, with a list of detenues under the COFEPOSA. Shri K. K. Kuncheria’s name is shown at Sl. No. 3 of the said list and the date of his detention under the COFEPOSA was shown as December 19, 1974. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to produce any evidence to show that Shri K. K. Kuncheria was detained under the, MISA and not under the COFEPOSA. The notice under section 6(1) as well as the reasons recorded also show that the said person was detained under the COFEPOSA. We have no doubt in our mind that the person was detained on December 19, 1974, under the COFEPOSA and the provisions of section 2(2) of the SAFEMA are attracted and the Act is applicable to him.
5. It was next contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellants being agriculturists, the forfeited property which consists of agricultural land with a building cannot be forfeited as section 60, proviso clause (c) of the Civil Procedure Code is a bar. The contention has no legs to stand in view of the overriding effect of section 24 of the SAFEMA which is in the following terms “the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force.”
6. Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code, the relevant portion extracted below are as follows :
“60. Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree. – (1) The following property is liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree, namely, lands, houses or other buildings, goods, money, bank-notes, cheques, bills of exchange, hundis, promissory notes, Government securities, bonds or other securities for money, debts, shares in a corporation and, save as hereinafter mentioned, all other saleable property, movable or immovable, belonging to the judgment-debtor, or over which, or the profits of which, he has a disposing power which he may exercise for his own benefit, whether the same be held in the name of the judgment-debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf :
Provided that the following particulars shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, namely :- . . .
(c) houses and other buildings (with the materials and the sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment) belonging to an agriculturist or a labourer or a domestic servant and occupied by him;”
From a reading of section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code, it is clear that the provision is applicable only to properties liable to attachment and sale in execution of “decrees”. “Decree” is defined by section 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Code as a formal expression of an adjudication, which, so far as regards the court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties. The competent authority is not a court. The proceedings before the competent authority do not commence with a plaint. The order of forfeiture made by the competent authority is not a decree. In State of Punjab v. Dina Nath, AIR 1984 SC 352, it was held that section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to attachment and sale in any proceedings other than in execution of a decree of a civil court. The provisions of section 60 of the Code do not apply to an attachement and sale in any other statute, unless made expressly applicable thereto.
7. The competent authority is neither a civil court nor the order of forfeiture passed by the competent authority a decree. The provisions of section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code are not made applicable to the SAFEMA and hence section 60 cannot be invoked by the appellant.
8. In view of the specific provision in section 24 of the SAFEMA which has an overriding effect on all other statutes which are inconsistent with the provisions of the SAFEMA, clause (c) of the proviso to section 60 cannot come to the rescue of the appellant.
9. The competent authority while holding that even if it is shown that Chanda Pillai had sufficient means of income, the said circumstances itself cannot prove that he gave a substantial loan to the detenue, who is distantly related to him, for acquiring the property. The evidence on record reveals the Chanda Pillai had agricultural income, as seen from the proceedings of the agricultural income-tax authority. He was also assessed to sales tax pertaining to the financial years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 which are prior to the purchase of the property. By his letter dated June 8, 1981, Chanda Pillai proved that he was dealing in arecanut, coconut and other products during the relevant years and he gave the amount of Rs. 11,000 for purchase of the property to the detenue. We are unable to agree with the reasons given by the competent authority for not accepting the said evidence.
10. It is also on record that the detenue was an employee in the Syndicate Bank and he was an income-tax assessee from the years 1970 to 1978-79. We have, therefore, to hold that the detenue had sufficient means to acquire the property for a sum of Rs. 11,000. There is material to hold that the said amount was earned legally. The property was not an illegally acquired property and could not have been forfeited.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant advanced a few other contentions, which we consider unnecessary to refer to, in view of our holding that the property is not an illegally acquired property.
12. For all the aforesaid reasons, we partly set aside the order of the competent authority dated October 31, 1995, so far as item No. 1, which is, 1 acre 36 cents of land with building in Survey No. 81/1-1 in Thrikodithanam village, Chenganacheri, is concerned. The appeal is allowed to the said extent and is dismissed in other respects.