M/S Balmokand Faqir Chand vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Held

The Court held that the District Magistrate's order dated January 20, 2023, attaching the property appears correct and does not warrant interference. The Court noted that the petitioner claimed to be a statutory tenant since 1948 and had made a representation for the appointment of an administrator, which was declined. However, the Court observed that the District Magistrate's order did not specifically address the prayer for the appointment of an administrator. The Court stated that if the petitioner avails the statutory remedy available to them, the concerned District Magistrate should consider it in light of Section 14(3) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Since a statutory remedy is available, the petition was dismissed on this ground alone. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim of tenancy or the validity of the attachment itself, but rather on the availability of an alternative statutory recourse.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Balmokand Faqir Chand, a partnership firm dealing in edible oils, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 20, 2023, passed by the District Magistrate, Agra. This order attached a shop located at 3/43-A, Kacheri Ghat, Police Station-Chhatta, District-Agra. The attachment was based on a report that the property was acquired by a gangster (respondent no.6, Mohd. Shan) through criminal activities. The petitioner claimed to be a statutory tenant of the shop since 1948, paying rent to the current owner, Mohd. Shan, since February 11, 2019. The petitioner argued that neither the firm nor its partners are accused under the Gangster Act and that they regularly pay GST. The District Magistrate had rejected the petitioner's representation, deeming them not a bona fide tenant. The petitioner sought quashing of the attachment order and a direction for the appointment of an administrator.

Key Issues

1. Whether the District Magistrate's order dated January 20, 2023, attaching the shop premises of M/s. Balmokand Faqir Chand, is legally sustainable, considering the petitioner's claim of being a statutory tenant since 1948 and the property being acquired by respondent no.6 prior to the petitioner's tenancy and the alleged criminal activities? (Section 14, U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the attachment order is misconceived as the firm is a bona fide tenant, evidenced by rent receipts, an affidavit, a departmental license, and regular GST payments. They contended that the District Magistrate failed to consider this evidence and that the property was acquired by respondent no.6 from previous owners, not directly from criminal proceeds related to the petitioner. They also argued that the property was acquired prior to the registration of the case against the accused under the Act. Respondent's contention: The State argued that the petitioner is neither the owner nor a claimant of the property and, as a tenant, is not entitled to its release or the appointment of an administrator. They asserted that the District Magistrate was satisfied that the attached property was acquired as a result of an offense triable under the Act, making the order lawful.