Bombay HC Dismisses Plea Over Tiger Memon’s Kurla Flats Seizure

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition filed by relatives of 1993 Bombay blasts accused Tiger Memon, challenging the seizure of two Kurla flats by enforcement authorities. The properties, located in Baug-e-Rehmat Co-operative Housing Society in east Mumbai, were confiscated under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA).

Petitioners Claim To Be Genuine Purchasers

The plea was filed by 77-year-old Zaibunissa Ebrahim Khan and her late husband’s legal heirs, who claimed to have bought the flats from Tiger Memon’s parents, Abdul Razak and Hanifa Memon, in 1992. The petitioners contended they had paid ₹6.75 lakh through bank transactions, remained in possession of the flats for over three decades, and consistently cleared maintenance and utility bills.

Their lawyer, Sujay Kantawala, argued that these facts reinforced their status as genuine purchasers. He further submitted that no opportunity for a hearing was given before the forfeiture order in September 1993, which violated principles of natural justice.

Authorities Oppose Ownership Claims

Appearing for the competent authority, advocate Manisha Jagtap countered that the petitioners had no registered sale deed, which was crucial to establish legal ownership. She also pointed out that the Memons had already challenged the forfeiture before the appellate tribunal and High Court, and both had upheld the order. The CBI supported this position, underlining the absence of any evidence proving a legitimate transfer of ownership.

Court’s Grounds For Dismissal

After hearing arguments, the bench dismissed the plea on three key grounds:

Lack of Valid Ownership – No registered sale deed existed for the flats.

Failure To Prove Bona Fide Purchase – Payment of bills or producing bank statements did not confer ownership rights.

Earlier Proceedings Upheld Forfeiture – Since the forfeiture order had already been confirmed, the petitioners were not entitled to a fresh notice or hearing.

The court also noted that litigants who suppress material facts cannot seek relief, observing that full and fair disclosure is a prerequisite to invoking writ jurisdiction.” Refusing a stay on its decision, the bench stated that since 1993, the forfeiture order had remained valid and “nothing illegal has been shown.