Case Details: Navdeep Kumar @ Deepu vs. Competent Authority (2025) 36 Centax 142 (ATFP)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- S/Shri Balesh Kumar & Rajesh Malhotra, Members
- S/Shri Tarun Singh Awana, Kuldeep Singh & H.S. Bhogal, Advs., for the Appellant.
- Shri Gopesh Tripathi, Adv., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged the order of the competent authority confirming the seizure and freezing of his residential house and agricultural land. The properties were allegedly acquired from illicit income following registration of an FIR, in which the appellant was found in possession of drugs. The appellant contended that the residential house was built on ancestral land and renovated while the agricultural land had been owned well before the FIR. It was submitted that Jamabandi and other documents established prior ownership and lawful acquisition. The matter was accordingly placed before the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property.
Appellate Tribunal Held
The Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property held that the freezing authority failed to produce any valuation report or credible evidence showing that the residential house was constructed recently or acquired from illicit income. The Jamabandi confirmed prior ownership of the agricultural land. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof under Section 101 of the Evidence Act lies on the freezing authority, and Sections 103 of the Evidence Act apply only after the initial burden is discharged. In absence of credible evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashed the order confirming seizure/freezing of both properties, and restored possessions.
