BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY

4TH FLOOR, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI-

11003
APPEAL NO. _____ OF 2025
IN THE MATTER OF: -
GURDEV SINGH & ANR …
APPELLANT
VERSUS
COMPETENT AUTHORITY & ADMINISTRATOR, NEW DELHI & ANR.
… RESPONDENTS
MEMO OF PARTIES

1. Sh. Gurdev Singh

S/o Shri Heera Singh,
R/o Village: Maluwal,
Police Station: Jhabal,
District: Tarn Taran, Punjab.

2. Smt. Ranjit Kaur,

W/o Sh. Gurdev Singh
R/o Village: Maluwal,
Police Station: Jhabal,
District: Tarn Taran, Punjab.

3. Smt. Ranjit Kaur,

W/o Sh. Karaj Singh
(Sister in Law of Sh. Gurdev Singh)
R/o Village: Maluwal,
Police Station: Jhabal,
 District: Tarn Taran, Punjab.

…APPELLANT

VERSUS

1. Competent Authority & Administrator

SAFEM (FOP)AA, 1976 & NDPS Act, 1985,
B-Wing 9th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan,
Khan Market, New Delhi -110003

2. The Station House Officer

Police Station: Jhabal/Chabhal District Tarn Taran, Punjab
…RESPONDENTS

APPELLANTS

THROUGH

Adarsh Priyadarshi And Associates

NEW DELHI Advocates for Appellants A2/74,
DATE 03.2025 LGF, Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi-110029.
Mobile No: +91-880666274
E-mail Id: [email protected]
 BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY,
4TH FLOOR, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI-
11003
APPEAL NO. _____ OF 2025
IN THE MATTER OF: -
KAMALJIT KAUR
… APPELLANT
VERSUS
COMPETENT AUTHORITY & ADMINISTRATOR, NEW DELHI & ANR.
… RESPONDENTS
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 68-O (1) OF THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND
PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 AGAINST ORDER DATED
22.01.2025 PASSED BY INSPECTING OFFICER FOR COMPETENT
AUTHORITY AND ADMINISTRATOR SAFEM (FOP) ACT AND NDPS
ACT, DELHI BY WHICH FREEZING ORDER DATED 24.12.2024 PASSED
BY THE SEIZING/AUTHORITY WAS CONFIRMED (RESPONDENT NO.
2).
THE APPELLANT HEREBY SUBMIT AS UNDER: -
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
That the present Appeal under Section 68-O (1) of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as
"NDPS") is being filed against Order dated 22.01.2025 passed by
Inspecting officer for Competent Authority and Administrator SAFEM
(FOP) Act and NDPS Act, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld.
Adjudicating Authority”) in case bearing number F.No.
 CA/DL/PUN/NDPS/POL/680/24-25/9183 in respect of FIR No. 13 dated
01.02.2015 under section 21/61 of NDPS Act whereby Freezing Order
dated 24.12.2024 passed by Station House Officer, PS, Jhabal/Chabhal
District Tarn Taran, Punjab was confirmed. The impugned order dated
22.01.2025 is erroneous, illegal and bad in law and is thus liable to be set
aside. Certified copy of the order dated 22.01.2025 is herein annexed as
ANNEXURE A-1.
1) That the appellant received the Impugned Order (Annexure A-1) on
XX.XX .2025. Thus, the present appeal is preferred within the prescribed
period without any delay.
2) That the appellant desires to be represented through her Counsels, details
of whom are given in Power of Attorney (Vakalatnama) filed along with
the Appeal.
3) That the address of the Appellants for the purpose of service is as under: -
I. Sh. Gurdev Singh
S/o Shri Heera Singh,
R/o Village: Maluwal,
Police Station: Jhabal,
District: Tarn Taran, Punjab.

II. Smt. Ranjit Kaur,

W/o Sh. Gurdev Singh
R/o Village: Maluwal,
Police Station: Jhabal,
District: Tarn Taran, Punjab.

III. Smt. Ranjit Kaur,

W/o Sh. Karaj Singh
(Sister in Law of Sh. Gurdev Singh)
 R/o Village: Maluwal,
Police Station: Jhabal,
District: Tarn Taran, Punjab.

4) That the address of the Respondents for the purpose of service is as

below:
Respondent No. 1: Competent Authority & Administrator
SAFEM (FOP)AA, 1976 & NDPS Act, 1985,
B-Wing 9th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan,
Khan Market, New Delhi -110003
Respondent No. 2: The Station House Officer
Police Station: Jhabal/Chabhal District Tarn Taran, Punjab

BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE FILING OF PRESENT APPEAL: -

I. That the Appellants in the above captioned case is a law abiding Indian
citizen and has full faith and trust in the law of land

II. That consequent upon alleged recovery/ seizure of 01 Kilogram of

Heroin from the possession of Sh. Gurdev Singh(Appellant No. 1 herein)
a case bearing FIR No. 13 dated 01.02.2015 was registered against him
under section 21/61 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 by the by the Station House Officer, Police Station: Jhabal,
District: Tam Taran, Punjab. It is submitted that the Appellant No. 1 was
arrested in the above case on 01.02.2015. Copy of the FIR bearing
No.170 dated 09.12.2023 The Translated copy of the FIR No. 11/2024 is
herein annexed as ANNEXURE A-2.
III. That Station House Officer (hereinafter referred to as “SHO”) of PS
Jhabal/Chabhal District Tarn Taran, Punjab, apparently conducted a
financial investigation into the alleged Illegally acquired properties of the
appellant and passed a Freezing/Seizing Order No. 713-5E dated
24.12.2024 is enumerated as under:

Sr. Name of Description of Property Date/Year Value (In

No. Owners of Rs.)
Acquisitio
n/Constru
ction

1. Sh. Gurdev Residential building 2014 61,00,000/-

Singh having covered area of
S/o Shri Ground Floor is 3500 Sq.
Heera Singh, Ft. and boundary wall
bathroom & Gate situated
at Village Maluwal,
District: Tarn Taran,
Punjab.

2. (i) Smt. (i) Agriculture land 01 2018-24 6,00,000/-

Ranjit Kaur, Kanals and 08 Marlas
W/o Sh. purchased vide
Gurdev Mutation No. 2940
Singh and dated 04.10.2024:
Smt. Ranjit
(a) Land Measuring 0
Kaur, W/o
Kanal and 11 Marla i.e.
Late Sh.
11/252 share out of land
Karaj Singh
measuring 12 Kanals and
12 Marlas comprised in
Khewat No. 2, Khatauni
No. 2 and Khasra No.
34//16/2 (3-11), 34//25
(8-0), 107 (0-10), 108 (0-
11)

(b) Land Measuring 0

Kanal and 17 Marla i.e.
1/18 share out of land
measuring 16
Kanals and 0 Marla
comprised in Khewat No.
158. Khatauni No. 310
and Khasra No. 7/21 (3-
0), 8/16 (1-9) 8/25 (5-17),
9/15 (3-14), 10/1/1 (2-0)

and
1,19,00,000
(ii) Agriculture land 27
Kanal and 07 Marlas
purchased vide
mutation no. 2768 dated
19.01.2018:

(a) Land measuring 06

Kanals and OS Marlas
i.e. salm share out of land
measuring 06 Kanals and
08 Marias comprised in
Khewat No. 209,
Khatauni No. 402 and
Khasra No. 36//16/2 (1-
2), 37//20/1 (5-6)

(b) Land measuring 12

Kanals and 19 Marlas ie.
salm share out of land
measuring 12 Kanals and
19 Marlas comprised in
Khewat No. 231,
Khatauni No. 453 and
Khasra No. 37/18/2 (2-1),
37//18/3 (2-11), 37/19/1
(3-2), 37//22/3 (1-7),
37//23/1 (0-8), 37//23/2
(1-3). 37//23/3 (2-7)

(c) Land measuring 08

Kanal and 0 Marla ie.
salm share out of land
measuring 08 Kanals and
00 Marlas comprised in
Khewat No. 251,
Khatauni No. 491 and
 Khasra No. 36//17 (8-0)

1,25,00,000

*Total agriculture land

28 Kanals and 15
Marlas (3.59 Acres) i.e.
½ share of 14 Kanals
and 07 % Marlas in the
name of (0) Smt. Ranjit
Kaur W/o Gurdev
Singh & (ii)
Ranjit Kaur W/o Karaj

The copy of order dated 24.12.2024 passed by SHO Police Station:

Jhabal/Chabhal District Tarn Taran, Punjab, is attached herewith as
ANNEXURE A-3
IV. That, it is alleged by the Station House Officer of Police Station:
Jhabal/Chabhal District Tarn Taran, Punjab based on his financial
investigation that the above-mentioned property has been
acquired/constructed by the Appellant in their names out of the illegal
income earned through drug smuggling.
It respectfully submitted that:
A. That no proper investigation was carried out by the Investigating
Officer in as much as there was nothing on record that “he had
reason to believe” that property in respect of which investigation
was conducted is an illegally acquired/constructed property.

B. That the Ld. Investigating Officer mechanically copied the

ingredients of the relevant Section but a bare reading of it would
 demonstrate that there was no application of mind by the
Investigating Officer.

V. That a copy of the Freezing Order by SHO dated 24.12.2024 was sent to
the Appellants to defend her case before the Competent Authority on
XX .12.2024 which was received by the Appellant on XX.11.2024.

VI. That it is pertinent to mention here that, contrary to the allegations in the
freezing order, the property in question was neither purchased with
proceeds from drug-related activities nor were funds for its renovation
sourced from illicit means. The property was acquired and renovated
entirely with hard-earned money, and there is no connection between the
aforementioned FIRs and the property in question.

VII. That in S.no . 1 of the impugned Order received by the Appellant, under
the heading " List of Property," That in respect of property at serial No:1
it is stated that the Residential House constructed (though in the
impugned order Appellant No -1 names as shown as owner of the house)
in village Maluwal District Taran Taran registered in the name of the
Appellant No-1 viz. Sh. Gurdev Singh S/o Heera Singh is the residential
house which was bought by the mother of the Respondent No-1 Gurdev
Singh and her annual income from the agricultural land is approx 20
lakhs per annum and the said residential house was bought her. The said
property was purchased more than a decade earlier has no nexus with
either the scheduled offence or the alleged proceeds of crime. ‘J’ Form
issued by the market committee Chabal showing that mother of the
Appellant No:1 has substantial agricultural income is attached herewith
as ANNEXURE P-4.

1. Therefor in respect of property No:1 it is submitted that

 a) It was purchased by the mother of Respondent No:1 namely Harjit
Kaur
b) It was purchased out of legitimate and valid agricultural income of
the mother of Respondent No:1 property purchased much earlier in
time cannot be attached as proceed of crime. That mother of
Appellant move an application before the Naib Tehsildar,Tehsil
Chabal for spot inspection of the above mentioned property and
Naib Tehsildar certified that said Harjit Kaur is the sole owner of
the residential house. Copy of application along with order of Naib
Tehsildar is attached herewith as ANNEXURE P-5 (Colly)
VIII. That the property in question i.e. Agriculture land Measuring 27 Kanal 7
Marla in Village Maluwal in District Tarn Taran (Punjab) registered on
the name of Ranjit Kaur W/o Karaj Singh (1/2 shares i.e. 14 Kanals 071
½ Marla) And Ranjit Kaur W/o Gurdev Singh (1/2 Shares i.e. 14 Kanala
07 ½ Marla) was bough by the brother of the Appellant No-1 namely
(Late Karaj Singh who died in the year 2022) in the name of his wife
Ranjit Kaur and his sister-in-law Ranjit Kaur W/o Gurdev Singh vide
registered sale deed dated 29.11.2017. and the brother of the Appellant
No-1 has substantial agricultural income to buy the above mention
agricultural land. J’ Form issued by the market committee
Chabal showing that brother of the Appellant No:1 has
substantial agricultural income is annexed and marked as
ANNEXURE P-6 The copy of the sale deed dated 29.11.2017 is
annexed and marked as ANNEXURE P-7.

IX. That as per the freezing order, the aforementioned property is allegedly
acquired and/or constructed using proceeds from drug-related activities.
However, the true facts are that the Appellant’s
X. That the Ld. Competent Authority passed the impugned order dated
22.01.2025 thereby confirming the freezing order of SHO of PS
Dorangla, Gurdaspur, dated 24.12.2024.

XI. That aggrieved by the order dated 22.01.2025, the Appellant is filing the
present appeal on the following grounds amongst others which may arise
during the course of arguments.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

A. Because, the impugned order passed by Ld. Competent Authority is

totally misconceived, unwarranted, illegal and arbitrary, amounting to
miscarriage of justice and is passed without appreciating the facts and
material available on record. It is submitted that while passing the
Impugned Order the Ld. Competent Authority has failed to properly
exercise the jurisdiction vested in it.

B. BECAUSE, the Investigating Officer, as well as the Learned Competent

Authority, have erroneously concluded that the property at Serial No. 1
was allegedly purchased or constructed with illegal drug money, which
was valued at Rs. 61,00,000/-. However, the property in question is
ancestral and has been in the possession of the Appellant's family for
several generations. When the Appellant married, her husband and his
family were already residing in the property, Therefore, the allegation
that the property was acquired with proceeds from drug-related activities
is baseless and without merit.

C. BECAUSE the Learned Competent Authority has failed to appreciate all

the documentary evidence that was submitted on record. The impugned
order was passed without taking into consideration the relevant
documents, These documents were duly submitted by the Appellant in
 response to the notice of the freezing order, yet the Learned Authority has
completely disregarded them in making its decision.

D. Because, the Ld. Competent Authority has failed to appreciate the fact the
Appellant has not illegally acquired any of the above-mentioned
properties through tainted money. Further, as per the findings of the
impugned order the assertion that Appellant is not living with her
husband doesn’t imply that they never had cordial relation with each
other, and he never sent his hard-earned money from abroad to his family.
Their assertion to the legitimacy of the funds is misplaced. It is essential
to recognize that the non-sharing of a marital home by a married couple
does not equate to the use of tainted money.

E. Because, the source of the funds used for renovating the property is
legitimate, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Further, the
property in question necessitates a thorough evaluation of its worth as it
was constructed by the ancestors of the appellant’s husband a long time
ago and she has only made necessary changes to it which doesn’t cost as
much. So, the total value of the property has no bearing in the present
FIR.

F. Because, the impugned order passed by the Ld. Competent Authority is

without the appreciation of facts and material available on record.
Appellant No -1 has been in custody since 2016. There is no
incriminating evidence on record linking Appellant to the alleged crime.

G. Because, to establish that property is illegally acquired, it must be shown

that it is derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, "as a result of criminal
activity related to the alleged crime. While possession of unaccounted
property obtained through legal means may lead to tax violations, such
property cannot be classified as illegally acquired unless the pertinent tax
 legislation explicitly designates that violation as an offence. In
conclusion, only property that directly or indirectly results from such
criminal activity meets the legal definition of illegally acquired property.

H. BECAUSE the Impugned Order passed by the Ld. Adjudicating

Authority is without the appreciation of facts and material available on
record.

I. BECAUSE no proper investigation was carried out by the Investigating

Officer as much as there was nothing on record that “he had reason to
believe” that property in respect of which investigation was conducted is
an illegally acquired property. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Phool
Chand Bajrang Lal vs. ITO : [1993] 203 ITR 456] has held as under:-

“27. From a combined review of the judgments of this Court, it

follows that an Income-tax Officer acquires jurisdiction to reopen
assessment under Section 147(a) read with Section 148 of the
Income Tax 1961 only if on the basis of specific, reliable and
relevant information coming to his possession subsequently, he has
reasons which he must record, to believe that by reason of
omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a true ana
full disclosure of all material facts necessary for his assessment
during the concluded assessment proceedings, any part of his
income, profit or gains chargeable to income tax has escaped
assessment. He may start reassessment proceedings either because
some fresh facts come to light which where not previously
disclosed or some information with regard to the facts previously
disclosed comes into his possession which tends to expose the
untruthfulness of those facts. In such situations, it is not a case of
 mere change of opinion or the drawing of a different inference
from the same facts as were earlier available but acting on fresh
information. Since, the belief is that of the Income-tax Officer, the
sufficiency of reasons for forming the belief, is not for the Court to
judge but it is open to an assessee to establish that there in fact
existed no belief or that the belief was not at all a bona fide one or
was based on vague, irrelevant and non-specific information. To
that limited extent, the Court may look into the conclusion arrived
at by the Income-tax Officer and examine whether there was any
material available on the record from which the requisite belief
could be formed by the Income-tax Officer and further whether
that material had any rational connection or a live link for the
formation of the requisite belief.”

PRAYER

i. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is mostly humbly prayed

that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside the order
dated 22.11.2025.

ii. Stay the operation of the impugned order during the pendency of the
present appeal and direct that no coercive steps be taken against the
appellant during the pendency of present Appeal.

iii. That, the seized property of Appellant mentioned at serial no. I in the
impugned order be respectfully returned/restored to the Appellant as it
was, so that they can carry on quiet and peaceful possession/enjoyment of
the same.
iv. Pass any other/further order(s) which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit
and proper in the facts of the present case.

APPELLANTS

THROUGH

Adarsh Priyadarshi And Associates

NEW DELHI Advocates for Appellants A2/74,
DATE 03.2025 LGF, Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi-110029.
Mobile No: +91-880666274
F-mail Id: [email protected]
 BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
4TH FLOOR, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI-
11003
APPEAL NO. _____ OF 2025
IN THE MATTER OF: -
GURDEV SINGH & ANR …
APPELLANT
VERSUS
COMPETENT AUTHORITY & ADMINISTRATOR, NEW DELHI & ANR.
… RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION TO STAY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.01.2025

PASSED BY INSPECTING OFFICER FOR COMPETENT AUTHORITY
AND ADMINISTRATOR SAFEM (FOP) ACT AND NDPS ACT, DELHI BY
WHICH FREEZING ORDER DATED 24.12.2024 PASSED BY THE
SEIZING/AUTHORITY WAS CONFIRMED

Respectfully Showeth:

1. That the Appellant is aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Competent Authority
and have challenged the impugned order dated 22.01.2025 by the way of
appeal. The grounds urged in the appeal kindly be read as a part and parcel
of this application as well.

2. That no proper investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer in as

much as there was nothing on record that “he had reason to believe” that
 property in respect of which investigation was conducted is an illegally
acquired/constructed property.

3. That the Ld. Competent Authority has erred gravely and failed to appreciate
the documentary evidence which was on record but has not been
considered.

4. That the impugned order does not only reflect an absolute non-application of
mind, but also, has no force and sanctity and deserves to be stayed.

5. That the impugned order is not only procedurally flawed but also lacks
adequate justification.

6. That the Appellant has a good case on merit and is likely to succeed in the
appeal.

7. That great prejudice would be caused to the Appellant if the present

application is not allowed.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed to allow this instant application

and stay the operation of impugned order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the Ld.
Competent Authority as the same is contrary to the settled tenets of law and has
resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice.

APPELLANTS

THROUGH

Adarsh Priyadarshi And Associates

NEW DELHI Advocates for Appellants A2/74,
DATE 03.2025 LGF, Safdarjung Enclave
 New Delhi-110029.
Mobile No: +91-880666274
G-mail Id: [email protected]