G. C. Mishra, Acting Chairman
The matters are taken up through video conferencing. The appearances of the learned counsels are as above.
MP-PMLA-8571/DDN/2021 (U.H.), MP-PMLA-8573/DDN/2021 (U.H.) & MP-PMLA-8575/DDN/2021 (U.H.)
In view of the issuance of notices issued to the appellants under Section 8(4) of PMLA, 2002 for taking possession of the properties mentioned in the
said notices, the appellants/applicantâ€s counsel has filed the urgent applications on dated 31.03.2021 for urgent hearing/listing of the matters on the
grounds stated in the applications. The prayer for urgent hearing is considered and allowed by fixing the cases for today. The urgent applications are
disposed of accordingly.
FPA-PMLA-4016/DDN/2021, FPA-PMLA-4017/DDN/2021 & FPA-PMLA-4018/DDN/2021
Fresh appeals have been filed by the appellants under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLAâ€) against the order
dated 12.03.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi under PMLA, passed in Original Complaint (O.C.) No.1353/2020.
Upon hearing, issue notice. Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent (ED). The learned counsel for the
respondent seeks four weeks time to file the replies to the appeals, which is not objected. Considered the prayer and the same is allowed. As prayed,
the learned counsel for the respondent is granted four weeks time to file replies to the appeals with advance copies to the other side, who may file
rejoinders, if any, within four weeks thereafter with advance copies to the other side.
MP-PMLA-8570/DDN/2021 (Stay) In FPA-PMLA-4016/DDN/2021, MP-PMLA-8572/DDN/2021 (Stay) In FPA-PMLA-4017/DDN/2021
& MP-PMLA-8574/DDN/2021 (Stay) In FPA-PMLA-4018/DDN/2021
Along with the appeals the appellants have filed applications seeking ad-interim stay against the impugned order dated 12.03.2021 as well as to stay
the effect and operation of eviction notices by restraining the respondent (ED) from taking any coercive measures and from taking physical possession
with regard to the issuance of the three eviction notices all dated 22.03.2021 issued by the Respondent (ED) under Section 8(4) of the PML Act, 2002
read with Rule 5(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties Confirmed by the Adjudicating
Authority) Rules, 2013, directing the appellants to vacate premises within the stipulated/statutory 10 days period from the date of service of those
notices.
During the course of hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the said Impugned Order dated 12.03.2021 passed by the
Adjudicating Authority in O.C. No.1353/2020 was received by the appellants on 22.03.2021 and all the three eviction notices dated 22.03.2021 stated
to have been served on the appellants on 24.03.2021 and the stipulated period of 10 days is expiring on 02.04.2021, which is a holiday.
It is inter-alia contended in the appeals/applications as well as orally submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that appellant at serial no.1
above Shri Balwant Singh is the father of Shri Daljit Singh, appellant at serial no.2 above, and Grandfather of Shri Barinder Singh, appellant at serial
no.3 above and that Shri Daljit Singh, appellant at serial no.2 above is the father of Shri Barinder Singh, appellant at serial no.3 above.
It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants/applicants that the appellant Shri Balwant Singh who owns about 11.5 Acres of land in
Village Tehsil â€" Kashipur, District â€" Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand, filed Revenue Case No.22/517 in the year 2009-10 under Section 143 of
the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, as applicable in Uttarakhand (the “ZA & LR Actâ€) before the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Kashipur, for conversion of his land from agricultural to non-agricultural to set up a school on the said land. The said
Revenue Case was allowed by the Ld. SDM vide order dated 30.09.2010 and the said conversion of land was done and subsequent to that in the year
2014 the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) acquired various lands in District â€" Udham Singh Nagar for the widening/construction of
National Highway No.74 (Haridwar-Kashipur Section) and a Notification dated 19.06.2013 was issued under Section 3A of National Highways Act,
1956 and to that an extent of 7.19 Acres of land in Village Tehsil â€" Kashipur, District â€" Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand, belonging to Shri
Balwant Singh was acquired by NHAI for which a total compensation of Rs.34,05,61,000/-was received by appellant no.1 Shri Balwant Singh on
dated 24.08.2016 & 14.09.2016 and the amount received from the compensation has been used to purchase the properties in question as mentioned in
the eviction notices in the name of appellants and that the same are used for the purpose of agriculture as they have grown wheat and rice crops in
these lands and the appellants and their family members are totally dependent upon the said agricultural lands as the appellants are farmers who have
no other source of income apart from the agricultural income and it will cause great prejudice if the operation of the eviction notices are not stayed
and it would cause great inconvenience and irreparable harm to the appellants, if the appellants are dispossessed and the possession of the properties
mentioned in the eviction notices are taken away by the respondent (ED) and that, without prejudice, the respondent has taken the entire
compensation amount as proceeds of crime even though an area of 7.19 Acres of land have been acquired by the Government, as such the
quantification of proceeds of crime is illogical and erroneous.
On the aforesaid grounds the appellants are seeking stay of the impugned order and stay on the operation of the eviction notices dated 22.03.2021 and
submitted that the appellants have a prima facie case for grant of stay of the impugned order and the operation of the eviction notices. If the impugned
order and the operation of the eviction notices are not stayed then it will cause irreparable injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money as
they have put hard labour and invested in growing the crops and the appellants and their family members will face starvation as the respondent (ED)
would take away the possession on the strength of the impugned order and eviction notices.
On the other hand, Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta, learned counsel for the respondent (ED) strongly raised objection to the submissions made by the
appellantâ€s counsel and also opposed for granting of any interim relief in favour of the appellants as proceeds of crime has travelled into the
aforesaid properties. It is further submitted that the entire compensation amount is proceeds of crime and in the event any interim relief is granted then
the appellants may be directed to deposit the proceeds of agricultural income with the respondent (ED) along with Statement of Income &
Expenditure. However, he sought four weeks time to file replies to the stay applications, which is not objected.
I have heard the submissions made by both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the immovable properties as
mentioned in the eviction notices are agricultural lands and there is no dispute that the appellants have grown crops in the lands as mentioned in the
eviction notices and that an area of 7.19 Acres of land have been acquired from the appellant Shri Balwant Singh. As per the learned counsel for the
appellants, the appellants are dependent on the income generated from these agricultural lands and if they are dispossessed then there will be undue
hardships with the family.
Therefore, considering all aspects of the appeals including the aforesaid admitted facts, I am of the considered view that the appellants have able to
show a prima facie case for grant of ad-interim order of status quo with respect to properties against which eviction notices have been issued, till the
next date of hearing. If the eviction notices are allowed to be executed, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, there will be irreparable
injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The facts and circumstances of the case are sufficient to state that the balance of
convenience lies in granting the order of status quo with respect to the properties mentioned in the eviction notices. In view of the above, both the
parties are directed to maintain “status quo’ as on today with respect to the properties (agricultural lands) till the next date of hearing.
The aforesaid order of ad-interim ‘status quo’ is granted subject to the following conditions:-
i. Attachments shall continue.
ii. The legal and constructive possession of the properties mentioned in the eviction notices shall remain with the Enforcement Directorate;
iii. The appellants are prohibited to create any third party right, transfer or dispose of the properties mentioned in the eviction notices in any manner;
iv. The appellants are prohibited to alter the nature and character of the properties in question.
v. No encumbrance shall be created by the appellants in respect of the properties mentioned in the eviction notices.
The order of status quo is further subject to condition that the appellants shall submit details of income earned and expenditure incurred on the said
agricultural operations in growing the existing crops, till harvesting, with the Enforcement Directorate within one month, from the completion of the
date of agricultural operations including harvesting, etc.
Respondent is granted four weeks time to file the replies to the stay applications with an advance copy to be served on the other side.
With the consent of both the parties, list the stay applications along with the appeals on 04th August, 2021.
