C/SCA/10838/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10838 of 2025 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10838 of 2025 ========================================================== SIKANDAR MITHU PADIYAR & ANR. Versus COMPETENT AUTHORITY SAFEMA/NDPS & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: TIRTH NAYAK(8563) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI Date : 10/07/2026 ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1 of 2025 The present Civil Application preferred by the petitioner is not seriously opposed. Hence, the same is allowed. The amendment, as prayed for, shall be carried out forthwith. The present Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly. ORDER IN R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10838 of 2025 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Tirth Nayak for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah for the respondents– Competent Authority, SAFEMA/NDPS. Page 1 of 7 C/SCA/10838/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 02.05.2024 passed by respondent No. 2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Tirth Nayak stated that he does not press the prayer made in paragraph 7(A1). Accordingly, the matter was argued, and this Court has considered the petition only with respect to the relief sought in paragraph 7(A), namely, quashing and setting aside the order dated 02.05.2024 passed by respondent No. 2. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 is the son of late Mithu Bawa Padiyar, and petitioner No. 2 is the deserted wife of late Mithu Bawa Padiyar, who was treated as a person engaged in smuggling activities within the meaning of the provisions of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 ("SAFEMA"). Consequently, proceedings under the SAFEMA Act were initiated against the said Mithu Bawa Padiyar, culminating in an order dated 30.06.1999 passed by the Competent Authority in Proceedings No. 15/SAFEMA/AHD/1999 under Sections 7 and 19 of the SAFEMA Act. By the said order, the following two properties were held to be illegally acquired properties of Mithu Bawa Padiyar: C/SCA/10838/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026 I. Immovable Properties A. Agricultural Lands 1. Land bearing Survey No. 71 (Paiki), admeasuring 4 acres, at Village Nundhatad, Taluka Abdasa, District Kutch, estimated value of Rs. 20,000/-. 2. Land bearing Survey No. 1097, admeasuring 29 acres and 16 gunthas, at Village Mothala, Taluka Abdasa, District Kutch. B. House Properties House properties at Village Nundhatad, Taluka Abdasa, District Kutch: Survey No. Nature of Property Estimated Market Value 2/52 Residential House Rs. 30,000/- 2/55A ---do--- Rs. 20,000/- 2/55B --do--- Rs. 20,000/- 2/60B --do--- Rs. 35,000/- II. Movable Property 1. Truck No. GTY-3244, registered in the name of Shri Mithu Bawa Padiyar since 03.02.1976. Page 3 of 7 C/SCA/10838/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026 3.1. The Competent Authority and Administrator, SAFEMA/NDPS, Mumbai Unit, Ahmedabad, by order dated 30.06.1999, declared the aforesaid immovable and movable properties to be illegally acquired properties liable to be forfeited under Section 7(3) of the SAFEMA Act and the accused person was called upon to hand over the above properties under Section 19 to the inspecting officer, SAFEMA/NDPS, within a period of 45 days from the receipt of the order. 4. The aforesaid order dated 30.06.1999 was served upon the accused person on 02.07.1999. According to the petitioners, however, they came to know of the said order only on 07.08.2000, and, therefore, contended that the appeal filed by them was within 45 days from the date of acquiring knowledge of the order. However, in the very next paragraph of the application seeking condonation of delay, the petitioners took a contradictory stand by stating that, if the appeal were to be treated as having been filed against the order dated 30.06.1999, the delay of 357 days in preferring the appeal may be condoned on account of the illness of petitioner No. 2. 5. Except for the affidavit filed in support of the application, no documentary evidence was produced along with C/SCA/10838/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026 the application for condonation of delay. Ultimately, the Appellate Tribunal under the SAFEMA Act, New Delhi, by order dated 02.05.2024, dismissed FPA No. 71/BOM/2000, being the appeal preferred by the petitioners, on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond a period of limitation of 60 days, and hence, any delay beyond a period of 15 days cannot be condoned from the prescribed limitation of 45 days for filing the appeal against the order passed by the competent authority. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Tirth Nayak submitted that petitioner No. 2 is the deserted wife of late Mithu Bawa Padiyar and petitioner No. 1 is his son. It was contended that, although they had been deserted, they were in possession of the properties in question and, being persons affected by the forfeiture proceedings, they were entitled to an opportunity of hearing before possession of the properties was taken over. However, learned advocate Mr. Nayak could not dispute the fact that possession of the properties in question had, in fact, been taken over from the petitioners as far back as 07.08.2000. 6.1. Further, except for the averments made in the petition, no material has been annexed in support of the petitioners' case, either to establish that petitioner No. 2 was a deserted C/SCA/10838/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026 wife or that the properties in question belonged to the petitioners. On the contrary, during the course of submissions, learned advocate Mr. Tirth Nayak fairly conceded that, apart from the fact that the petitioners were in possession of the properties, no documentary evidence is available to establish their ownership or any legal right, title, or interest in the properties in question. 6.2. Further, insofar as the issue of service of notice is concerned, the petitioners have made only bald averments in the present petition as well as in the application for condonation of delay filed before the Appellate Tribunal. The said averments are not supported by any documentary material or by any affidavit of an independent or third party witness. In the circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal has rightly considered the fact that a petitioner's appeal was filed beyond a period of 45 days limitation and 15 days further period provided under Section 12(4) of the SAFEMA Act, which prescribed an overall period of 60 days for preferring an appeal against the order passed by the authority. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah appearing for the respondents submitted that, in the absence of any statutory provision enabling the Appellate Tribunal to condone the delay C/SCA/10838/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026 beyond the period prescribed under Section 12(4) of the SAFEMA Act, the Tribunal was fully justified in refusing to condone the delay and in dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners as barred by limitation. 8. Upon perusal of the impugned order dated 02.05.2024, this Court finds that the Appellate Tribunal has not committed any error. In the absence of there being any cogent material capable of inspiring confidence in support of the petitioners' case, and in view of the absence of any statutory provision empowering the Tribunal to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period, no fault can be found with the impugned order. Admittedly, the appeal was preferred beyond the aggregate period of 60 days before the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal was fully justified in dismissing the petitioners' appeal as barred by limitation. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any illegality committed by the Appellate Tribunal while passing the order dated 2/5/2024. Accordingly, the petition is required to be dismissed and same is dismissed. No order as to costs. (NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) BHAVIN MEHTA Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE ONE, at High Court of Gujarat on 14/07/2026 11:45:50