The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Zaibunissa Ebrahim Khan, a 77-year-old resident of Mumbai, and her family, challenging the forfeiture of two Kurla flats that were once owned by relatives of absconding 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts accused, Tiger Memon.
A division bench of Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad upheld the 1993 forfeiture order passed under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA), ruling that the petitioners failed to prove valid ownership or bona fide purchase of the flats.
The Dispute
The case concerned Flats No. 405 and 406 in Baug-e-Rehmat Cooperative Housing Society, Kurla. Originally purchased in 1980 by Tiger Memon’s parents, Abdul Razak and Hanifa Memon, the flats were allegedly sold in 1992 to Zaibunissa Khan and her late husband. The Khans claimed to have paid ₹6.75 lakh through bank transactions, but no registered sale deed was ever executed.
In 1993, following Tiger Memon’s detention order under COFEPOSA and his involvement in the Mumbai serial blasts, authorities initiated SAFEMA proceedings. The flats were declared “illegally acquired properties” and forfeited. The TADA Court later attached the properties, with a Court Receiver appointed.
Although Zaibunissa and her husband continued residing in the flats by paying royalty to the Receiver, their ownership was never legally recognized. In 2025, after the TADA Court finally released Flat No. 406 to the Central Government, the Competent Authority demanded physical possession of both flats.
Counsel for the Khans, Dr. Sujay Kantawala, argued that the family were bona fide purchasers who paid consideration and lived in the flats for over three decades. They were never issued a show-cause notice under SAFEMA, violating natural justice. Payment of utility bills and possession since 1992 supported their ownership claim. They also relied on past Supreme Court rulings to contend that “holders” under SAFEMA were entitled to notice and hearing.
The bench rejected these arguments, holding that no registered sale deed existed, making the alleged purchase invalid under the Transfer of Property Act. Petitioners failed to prove they were “transferees in good faith for adequate consideration.” Their long possession and payment of bills did not confer ownership rights. The Memons had already contested the forfeiture in earlier appeals, which were dismissed, and the Khans suppressed these facts in their petition.
The court emphasized that SAFEMA aims to prevent relatives and associates of offenders from shielding illegally acquired assets. Since the properties were traceable to Tiger Memon’s family, all subsequent transactions stood overridden.
Dismissing the petition, the court refused to grant any stay, observing that the petitioners had suppressed material facts and had no valid title. The Competent Authority is now free to take physical possession of the flats.
Case Details
Case Title: Zaibunissa Ebrahim Khan Versus The Competent Authority SAFEMA/NDPS
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 16599 OF 2025
Date: 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Dr. Sujay Kantawala
Counsel For Respondent: Manisha Jagtap
Read More: Shehbaz Sharif Bats for Stronger Ties with Russia, Calls Putin a ‘Dynamic Leader’
