X purchased a house following all the legal procedures and enquiries and it later came to light that he had purchased it after the issue of freezing order by SAFEMA authorities but before its final forfeiture order. As it is practically not possible to go to each and every dept. to find out abt such freezing orders, would it not be unfair if the house is forfeited from an innocent citizen who can't even predict such things.
The option of prosecuting the seller would be well nigh impossible more so since that person had happened to be a relative of an associate of a criminal. If the Govt. with all its machinery finds it difficult, how a common person can even dream of resorting to such a thing. My question is how, in the fairness of things, such a transaction can be invalidated by law. If that be the case, no one can buy any property with confidence. I suppose we don't buy properties with the intention to purchase litigation. In the fitness of things, would natural justice not demand that the human right to possession of property is not violated particularly since the property was purchased before its forfeiture? If the Dept. had neither informed the appropriate agencies against transfer nor taken possession of the same, how an innocent citizen can be penalised whom the said Act is intended to protect?
