Early Times Report
JAMMU, June 22: Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey has quashed the communication, bearing F.No. ECIR/03/DLZO-II/2017/AD(AK)/ 17058(A) dated 18.03.2020, issued by respondent no.3 to respondent no.4, to the extent in para 3 thereof it directs that revenue extracts of even those properties earlier belonging to Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and his family members may not be issued, is quashed.
In consequence thereof, if there is any application for issuance of revenue extracts pending or filed before respondent no.4 or before the concerned officials subordinate to him vis-a-vis such earlier properties of Watali as are not presently attached by the competent authority under Section 5 of the Act, respondent no.4 is directed to proceed therein in accordance with the law governing the subject.
This writ petition raises a short but significant question of law, which is: whether it is permissible for the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, acting under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, to ask the Tehsildar, Narbal, Budgam, Kashmir, not to issue revenue extracts vis-a-vis certain properties which, admittedly, have not been attached under Section 5 of the said Act and have, in fact, been left out of attachment order already made by and confirmed by the competent authority?
Trison Farms and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter, the petitioner-Company) is a Private Limited Company, incorporated on 07.09.1999 under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Baba Dharam Dass Complex Fakhr-i-Kashmir Bridge, Barbarshah, Srinagar. Sarwa Begum wife of Watali, through whom the present writ petition has been filed, is one of its Directors. The petitioner-Company is stated to be engaged in real estate business, buying land, developing it, raising construction of residential colonies and residential apartments thereon and sale thereof. The Company’s present business project is stated to be going on at Sozeith, Tehsil Narbal, District Budgam.
Justice Magrey a observed that it is not permissible for the designated officer of Directorate of Enforcement, acting under the provisions of Act, to ask the Tehsildar, Narbal, Budgam, Kashmir, not to issue revenue extracts vis-a-vis the properties which, admittedly, have not been attached under Section 5 of the said Act and have, in fact, been left out of attachment. |
