Bombay HC Dismisses Tiger Memon Relatives’ Plea Over Kurla Flats Seized Under SAFEMA

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has dismissed a plea filed by relatives of 1993 Bombay blasts accused Tiger Memon, challenging the seizure of two flats in Mumbai’s Kurla under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA).

The court also came down heavily on petitioners — 77-year-old Zaibunissa Ebrahim Khan and her family — for suppressing facts.

HC Rejects Petition Claiming Bona Fide Purchase

The petitioners had sought to restrain law enforcement authorities from taking possession of the flats located in Baug-e-Rehmat Co-operative Housing Society, claiming they were bona fide purchasers.

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

Petitioners Cite Utility Bills and Bank Transactions as Proof

The petitioners contended that they had paid Rs6.75 lakh through bank transactions, had been in possession of the flats for over three decades, and had regularly paid utility and maintenance bills. Their counsel argued that the bank statements reflected consideration for the purchase.

“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,” their lawyer submitted.

It was further argued that no notice or hearing had been granted before the forfeiture order of September 1993, in violation of principles of natural justice. Relying on Supreme Court rulings, the petitioners claimed that as “holders” under Section 2(2)(e) of SAFEMA, they were entitled to a hearing. The competent authority, they said, had produced no evidence linking the property to unlawful activity.

CBI Supports Authority’s Stance

Opposing the plea, the competent authority maintained that no registered sale deed existed, making the petitioners’ claim untenable. It also pointed out that the Memons themselves had earlier challenged the forfeiture before the appellate tribunal and the high court, and both forums had upheld the order. The CBI supported this stance.

Court Notes Suppression of Facts and Prior Uphold of Forfeiture

A bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad rejected the petition on three grounds — the absence of a registered sale deed, failure to prove bona fide purchase in good faith, and the fact that the forfeiture order had already been upheld in prior proceedings.

Also Watch:

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

Refusing to stay the order, the court concluded: “Since 1993, there has been no stay on the operation of the forfeiture order. Nothing illegal has been shown.”