Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, June 22: Observing that the communication of Enforcement Department (ED) is without jurisdiction, High Court quashed the communication under Money Laundering Act to the extent asking the Tehsildar not to issue revenue extracts of property belonging to family of the Zahoor Watali and directed the Tehsildar to proceed ahead in accordance with law in the case.
Sarwa Begum wife of Zahoor Watali approached the court with the plea seeking quashing the communication issued by Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, to ask the Tehsildar, Narbal, Budgam not to issue revenue extracts vis-à-vis certain properties, of family of Zahoor Watali
Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey while allowing the plea of petitioner-Sarwa Begum quashed the impugned communication 18.03.2020 to the extent of asking the Tehsildar not to issue revenue extracts of even those properties earlier belonging to Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and his family members.
“In consequence thereof, if there is any application for issuance of revenue extracts pending or filed before Tehsildar or before the concerned officials subordinate to him vis-à-vis such earlier properties of Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali as are not presently attached by the competent authority under Section 5 of the Act, Tehsildar is directed to proceed therein in accordance with the law governing the subject”, Justice Magrey directed.
“In the instant case, except issuing the impugned communication dated 18.03.2020 to the concerned Tehsildar directing him not to issue revenue extracts of even those properties earlier belonging to Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and his family members, that too, by an officer of the rank of Assistant Director, not designated in sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act, no other procedure contemplated by the provision of law has been followed”, reads the judgment.
In its reply ED stated that the registration of an FIR by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on 30.05.2017 for the commission of offences under Sections 120-B/121/121-A IPC read with Sections 13/16/17/18/20/38/39 and 40 of UAPA against one Hafiz Muhammad Saeed and Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, the charge sheet dated 18.01.2018 vis-à-vis which is stated to have been filed by the NIA against several persons.
It is averred that the specific allegation against the Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali was that he was one of the conduits responsible for arranging, raising, receiving and collecting funds domestically and abroad through various illegal channels, including ‘hawala’, for funding separatist and militant activities in the then State of Jammu and Kashmir.
The ED specifically stated that during the investigation by NIA proceeds of crime amounting to Rs.8.93 Crore received by Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali were identified and during investigation it was noticed that Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali had purchased parcels of land by piecemeal in the name of his family members from 2004.
Petitioner-Begum stated before the court that she is one of the directors of Trison Farms and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, raising construction of residential colonies and residential apartments and sale thereof.
The company’s present business project is stated to be going on at Sozeith, Tehsil Narbal, District Budgam since 2017, the Enforcement Directorate, registered Enforcement Case Information Report, ECIR No.03/DLZOII/2017/AD(AK) under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, one of the Promoter Directors of the petitioner-Company.
Consequent to the registration of ECIR against Watali and after seeking information from the concerned revenue authorities about the properties held by him and his family, land measuring 24 Kanals, 11.2 Marlas comprised in different Survey Nos, valuing Rs. 6.189 Crores, situated at Sozeith, Goripora, Narbal, Budgam, of the accused in the ECIR and his family members, including wife and two sons who also happen to be the Promoter-Directors of the petitioner-Company, was provisionally attached by the ED on16.04.2019 which was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority (PMLA), New Delhi, on 09.10.2019.
Subsequently, further land measuring 05 Kanals and 17.3 Marlas, comprised different Survey Nos. valuing Rs.1,47,74,881 situated at Sozeith, Goripora, Narbal, Budgam, belonging to the three Promoter-Directors of the petitioner-Company was provisionally attached by ED Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) on 31.07.2019 which was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority (PMLA), New Delhi on 10.01.2020 and a total of 30 Kanals and 8.5 Marlas of land situated at Sozeith, Goripora, Tehsil Narbal, District Budgam, Kashmir, stand attached.
Justice Magrey while referring to the provisions of PMLA said the provision of law does not envisage issuing any restraints by the designated officer vis-à-vis a property about which there is neither such reason recorded nor any provisional order of attachment made, much less an officer of the rank of Assistant Director.
Court added that the question of doing so by Assistant Director ED, who is neither the Director or an officer of the rank not below the rank of Deputy Director and authorised by the Director under sub-section (1) of Section 5 for the purpose, is even remote, impermissible and without jurisdiction.
Follow our WhatsApp channel