HANIFA MITHU PADIYAR(AMENDED AS PER ORDER DT.10/07/26)versusCOMPETENT AUTHORITY SAFEMA/NDPS

    C/SCA/10838/2025                            ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10838 of 2025

                                With
         CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1 of 2025
          In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10838 of 2025
==========================================================
                 SIKANDAR MITHU PADIYAR & ANR.
                             Versus
             COMPETENT AUTHORITY SAFEMA/NDPS & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
TIRTH NAYAK(8563) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

                           Date : 10/07/2026

 ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1
                               of 2025


      The present Civil Application preferred by the petitioner
is not seriously opposed. Hence, the same is allowed. The
amendment, as prayed for, shall be carried out forthwith. The
present Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly.



  ORDER IN R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10838 of
                                2025


1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Tirth Nayak for the petitioners
and learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah for the respondents–
Competent Authority, SAFEMA/NDPS.



                               Page 1 of 7
     C/SCA/10838/2025                                        ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026




2.     By way of the present petition, the petitioners have
prayed      for    quashing     and     setting      aside     the     order      dated
02.05.2024 passed by respondent No. 2. At the outset, learned
advocate Mr. Tirth Nayak stated that he does not press the
prayer made in paragraph 7(A1). Accordingly, the matter was
argued, and this Court has considered the petition only with
respect to the relief sought in paragraph 7(A), namely,
quashing and setting aside the order dated 02.05.2024 passed
by respondent No. 2.


3.     It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 is
the son of late Mithu Bawa Padiyar, and petitioner No. 2 is
the deserted wife of late Mithu Bawa Padiyar, who was treated
as a person engaged in smuggling activities within the meaning
of the provisions of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange
Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 ("SAFEMA").
Consequently,           proceedings    under        the   SAFEMA          Act      were
initiated against the said Mithu Bawa Padiyar, culminating in
an order dated 30.06.1999 passed by the Competent Authority
in Proceedings No. 15/SAFEMA/AHD/1999 under Sections 7
and 19 of the SAFEMA Act. By the said order, the following
two properties were held to be illegally acquired properties of
Mithu Bawa Padiyar:




                                      Page 2 of 7
    C/SCA/10838/2025                                       ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026




I. Immovable Properties

A. Agricultural Lands

   1. Land bearing Survey No. 71 (Paiki), admeasuring 4 acres,
      at Village Nundhatad, Taluka Abdasa, District Kutch,
      estimated value of Rs. 20,000/-.
   2. Land bearing Survey No. 1097, admeasuring 29 acres and
      16 gunthas, at Village Mothala, Taluka Abdasa, District
      Kutch.

B. House Properties

House properties at Village Nundhatad, Taluka Abdasa, District
Kutch:

 Survey No.            Nature of Property           Estimated Market Value

     2/52              Residential House                 Rs. 30,000/-

    2/55A                    ---do---                    Rs. 20,000/-

    2/55B                   --do---                      Rs. 20,000/-

    2/60B                   --do---                      Rs. 35,000/-


II. Movable Property

   1. Truck No. GTY-3244, registered in the name of Shri
      Mithu Bawa Padiyar since 03.02.1976.




                                      Page 3 of 7
     C/SCA/10838/2025                                          ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026




3.1. The           Competent          Authority             and          Administrator,
SAFEMA/NDPS, Mumbai Unit, Ahmedabad, by order dated
30.06.1999, declared the aforesaid immovable and movable
properties to be illegally acquired properties liable to be
forfeited under Section 7(3) of the SAFEMA Act and the
accused person            was called upon to hand over the above
properties       under      Section     19     to       the        inspecting     officer,
SAFEMA/NDPS, within a period of 45 days from the receipt of
the order.


4.     The aforesaid order dated 30.06.1999 was served upon
the accused person on 02.07.1999. According to the petitioners,
however, they came to know of the said order only on
07.08.2000, and, therefore, contended that the appeal filed by
them was within 45 days from the date of acquiring knowledge
of the order. However, in the very next paragraph of the
application seeking condonation of delay, the petitioners took a
contradictory stand by stating that, if the appeal were to be
treated     as     having     been     filed        against        the    order        dated
30.06.1999, the delay of 357 days in preferring the appeal may
be condoned on account of the illness of petitioner No. 2.


5.     Except       for   the   affidavit           filed     in     support      of     the
application, no documentary evidence was produced along with


                                      Page 4 of 7
     C/SCA/10838/2025                                ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026




the application for condonation of delay. Ultimately, the
Appellate Tribunal under the SAFEMA Act, New Delhi, by
order dated 02.05.2024, dismissed FPA No. 71/BOM/2000,
being the appeal preferred by the petitioners, on the ground
that the appeal was filed beyond a period of limitation of 60
days, and hence, any delay beyond a period of 15 days cannot
be condoned from the prescribed limitation of 45 days for
filing the appeal against the order passed by the competent
authority.


6.     Learned          advocate   Mr.    Tirth   Nayak   submitted            that
petitioner No. 2 is the deserted wife of late Mithu Bawa
Padiyar and petitioner No. 1 is his son. It was contended that,
although they had been deserted, they were in possession of
the properties in question and, being persons affected by the
forfeiture proceedings, they were entitled to an opportunity of
hearing before possession of the properties was taken over.
However, learned advocate Mr. Nayak could not dispute the
fact that possession of the properties in question had, in fact,
been taken over from the petitioners as far back as 07.08.2000.


6.1. Further, except for the averments made in the petition,
no material has been annexed in support of the petitioners'
case, either to establish that petitioner No. 2 was a deserted


                                    Page 5 of 7
      C/SCA/10838/2025                                    ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026




wife or that the properties in question belonged to the
petitioners. On the contrary, during the course of submissions,
learned advocate Mr. Tirth Nayak fairly conceded that, apart
from the fact that the petitioners were in possession of the
properties, no documentary evidence is available to establish
their ownership or any legal right, title, or interest in the
properties in question.


6.2. Further, insofar as the issue of service of notice is
concerned, the petitioners have made only bald averments in
the    present       petition    as   well     as   in   the   application          for
condonation of delay filed before the Appellate Tribunal. The
said averments are not supported by any documentary material
or by any affidavit of an independent or third party witness. In
the     circumstances,          the   Appellate      Tribunal       has      rightly
considered the fact that a petitioner's appeal was filed beyond
a period of 45 days limitation and 15 days further period
provided under Section 12(4) of the SAFEMA Act, which
prescribed an overall period of 60 days for preferring an
appeal against the order passed by the authority.


7.      Learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah appearing for the
respondents submitted that, in the absence of any statutory
provision enabling the Appellate Tribunal to condone the delay


                                      Page 6 of 7
            C/SCA/10838/2025                                                                   ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026




    beyond the period prescribed under Section 12(4) of the
    SAFEMA Act, the Tribunal was fully justified in refusing to
    condone the delay and in dismissing the appeal preferred by
    the petitioners as barred by limitation.


    8.         Upon perusal of the impugned order dated 02.05.2024,
    this Court finds that the Appellate Tribunal has not committed
    any error. In the absence of there being any cogent material
    capable of inspiring confidence in support of the petitioners'
    case, and in view of the absence of any statutory provision
    empowering the Tribunal to condone the delay beyond the
    prescribed period, no fault can be found with the impugned
    order. Admittedly, the appeal was preferred beyond the
    aggregate period of 60 days before the Appellate Tribunal.
    Therefore, the Tribunal was fully justified in dismissing the
    petitioners' appeal as barred by limitation.


    9.         In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not
    find any illegality committed by the Appellate Tribunal while
    passing the order dated 2/5/2024.                                          Accordingly, the petition is
    required             to be dismissed and same is dismissed. No order as
    to costs.


                                                                                                  (NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
    BHAVIN MEHTA
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE ONE, at High Court of Gujarat on 14/07/2026 11:45:50


                                                              Page 7 of 7