` 264 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Mantan Developers Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement and others CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Gautam, Advocate, Mr. Jeevanjot S. Kang, Mr. Sukesh Kumar Jindal, Advocate, Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate, Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Zoheb Hos (through video conferencing) with Mr. Lokesh Narang, Sr. Panel Counsel and Ms. ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the final attachment order dated 19.12.2025 (Annexure P/2) as also the provisional attachment order dated 11.07.2025, atta property acquired out of the ZO/14/2021. 2. At the time when the attachment order was passed, certain reports were received by the Enforcement Direct IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-1863 Date of Decision: Mantan Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement and others HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Gautam, Advocate, Mr. Jeevanjot S. Kang, Mr. Sukesh Kumar Jindal, Advocate, Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate, Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Advocate (through video conferencing) with Mr. Lokesh Narang, Sr. Panel Counsel and Ms. Shubhleen Dhariwal, Advocate for the respondent *** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by the final attachment order dated 19.12.2025 (Annexure P/2) as also the provisional attachment order dated 11.07.2025, attaching the immovable property property acquired out of the ‘proceeds of crime At the time when the attachment order was passed, certain reports were received by the Enforcement Directorate from the revenue authorities, as IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1863-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.09.2026 …Petitioner Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement and others …Respondents HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sukesh Kumar Jindal, Advocate, Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ain, Sr. Advocate (through video conferencing) with Mr. Lokesh Narang, Sr. Panel Counsel and Shubhleen Dhariwal, Advocate for the respondent – ED. ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by the final attachment order dated 19.12.2025 (Annexure P/2) as also the provisional attachment order dated ching the immovable property in question treating it to be proceeds of crime’ pursuant to ECIR No.GN At the time when the attachment order was passed, certain reports orate from the revenue authorities, as The petitioner is aggrieved by the final attachment order dated 19.12.2025 (Annexure P/2) as also the provisional attachment order dated treating it to be a pursuant to ECIR No.GN- At the time when the attachment order was passed, certain reports orate from the revenue authorities, as RAJESH KUMAR 2026.09.08 16:07 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-1863-2026 (O&M) [2] per which, the property in question stood recorded in the name of the accused nominated in ECIR No.GNZO//14/2021. 3. The writ petition has been filed stating that apart from the property in question, there were other properties also, which were subject matter of same provisional attachment order dated 11.07.2025 but as the revenue authorities later certified that those properties stood recorded in the name of other persons, therefore, the Directorate of Enforcement moved an application, whereupon, two other properties were kept out of the attachment proceedings. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that in the present case also, a similar report from the revenue authorities had been called for but such report was not received and consequently, the ED authorities and the Adjudicatory Authority proceeded to treat the earlier reports received from the revenue authorities to be conclusive and accordingly confirmed the attachment order. It was contended before us that if a fresh report is obtained from the revenue authorities, it would clearly demonstrate that at the relevant time, the property already stood acquired by the present petitioner and mutation entries were also affected and, therefore, the property in question was also liable to be kept out of attachment proceedings. 5. Taking note of such contention, this Court proceeded to pass the following order on 03.08.2026:- “It transpires that at the time when the adjudicating authority passed the order, a fresh report was awaited from the revenue authority. We, therefore, call upon the respondents to place on record the report, if any, obtained from the revenue authority. In case such RAJESH KUMAR 2026.09.08 16:07 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-1863-2026 (O&M) [3] report is still awaited, the authorities shall procure it and place it before the Court. Adjourned to 18.08.2026.” 6. Pursuant to the order aforesaid, an affidavit has been filed by the Directorate of Enforcement on 21.08.2026, which accompanies a fresh report of the revenue authorities dated 14.08.2026, as per which, the property in question stood mutated in favour of the petitioner much prior to passing of the attachment order itself. 7. The precise issue raised in the present writ petition is thus, as to whether the attached property in question has been acquired from the proceeds of crime or such property was purchased in an independent and separate transaction such that any inference of it having been acquired from proceeds of crime could be ruled out. For such purposes, the authorities of Enforcement Directorate have relied upon the reports of the revenue authorities. The previous report of the revenue authorities had supported the inference that the property in question was acquired from the proceeds of crime. 8. As the subsequent report received from the revenue authorities, prima-facie supports the contention of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to remit back the matter to the authorities concerned to accord fresh consideration to the claim of the petitioner regarding exclusion of property in question from attachment proceedings, keeping in view the revised report received from the revenue authorities. In order to facilitate such fresh consideration of cause, the final attachment order impugned in the writ petition dated 19.12.2025, insofar as it relates to the present property in question, stands quashed. The Adjudicating Authority shall reconsider the matter in the light of the subsequent report of the RAJESH KUMAR 2026.09.08 16:07 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-1863-2026 (O&M) [4] revenue authorities dated 14.08.2026 and pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the rights of the petitioner, on merits, and the adjudicating authority shall be at liberty to determine the issue, independently, in accordance with law. 9. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) JUDGE 03.09.2026 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2026.09.08 16:07 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.