Court rejects Tiger Memon's relatives' plea against Mumbai flats seizure

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea filed by relatives of 1993 Bombay blasts accused Tiger Memon, challenging the seizure of two flats in Mumbai’s Kurla by law enforcement authorities.

The petitioners had sought to restrain the authorities from taking possession of the flats, claiming to be bona fide purchasers. The two flats, located in Baug-e-Rehmat Co-operative Housing Society in east Mumbai, were seized under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA).

The dispute dates back to 1992, when the flats -- originally owned by Abdul Razak and Hanifa Memon, the parents of absconding blasts accused Ibrahim Abdul Razak Memon alias Tiger Memon -- were allegedly sold to 77-year-old Zaibunissa Ebrahim Khan and her late husband.

The petitioners contended that they had paid Rs 6.75 lakh through bank transactions, remained in possession for 33 years, and regularly paid maintenance bills and utility charges.

Khan’s lawyer, Sujay Kantawala, argued that the petitioners’ bank statements reflected payment of consideration for the purchase of the flats.

“The petitioners have continuously paid utility bills and maintenance charges as owners of the property, which reinforces their status as owners. The only pending formality was execution of a stamped and registered instrument to complete the transaction,” submitted Kantawala.

He further argued that no notice or hearing was granted before the forfeiture order of September 1993, violating principles of natural justice. Relying on Supreme Court rulings, Kantawala contended that as “holders” under Section 2(2)(e) of SAFEMA, the family was entitled to a hearing. He stressed that the competent authority had produced no evidence linking the property to unlawful activity.

The competent authority, represented by advocate Manisha Jagtap, opposed the plea, pointing out that no registered sale deed existed, and that the petitioners had suppressed the fact that the Memons had already challenged the forfeiture before the appellate tribunal and High Court, where they had lost. The CBI supported this stance.

After hearing all sides, the bench observed three key grounds to reject the plea.

First, the petitioners failed to prove valid ownership since no registered sale deed existed for the flats. Second, they could not establish themselves as bona fide purchasers in good faith for adequate consideration, as payment of bills or producing bank statements did not confer ownership rights. Third, the forfeiture order had already been upheld in earlier proceedings against the Memon family, making the petitioners ineligible for a fresh notice or hearing.

The bench also observed, "A litigant who suppresses material facts is not entitled to any relief. Full and fair disclosure is a prerequisite to invoking writ jurisdiction."

Dismissing the petition, the bench refused to grant a stay of its order, noting, “Since 1993, there has been no stay on the operation of the forfeiture order. Nothing illegal has been shown.”

- Ends

Tune In