The Allahabad High Court termed as “wholly arbitrary” a property attachment order issued by the Ghazipur district magistrate, saying it was based merely on the ground that the appellant happened to be the cousin of late gangster-turned-politician Mukhtar Ansari.
Setting aside the DM’s order which was also upheld by a Ghazipur special court, the bench of Justice Rajeev Beer Singh slammed the police action in the case, observing, “Except mere bald allegation made by the police in its report, there was no material to show that disputed property was constructed or acquired by the appellant from the financial resources acquired by commission of offences. The impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures. The impugned order of attachment passed by the learned District Magistrate is not based on proper satisfaction and the same is wholly arbitrary.”
Mukhtar’s cousin Mansoor Ansari had approached the court after police attached his property in 2023, claiming it was a benami asset of the now deceased gangster. Earlier, police had initiated the action under the Uttar Pradesh Gangster Act invoked against Mukhtar in 2007.
Mukhtar died in jail in March 2024.
The bench further noted, “Similarly, learned Special Judge (Gangster Act) has miserably failed to consider the evidence produced by the appellant. The version of appellant has been rejected without assigning any proper reasoning. Considering entire facts, it is clear that impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside.”
The bench also quoted an order which stated the “order to be passed under Section 17 of the Gangster Act must disclose reasons and the evidence in support of finding of the Court”. The Court is not empowered to act as a post office or mouthpiece of the State or the District Magistrate, the court said quoting the order, adding, “If a person has no criminal history during the period the property was acquired by him, how the property can be held to be a property acquired by or as a result of commission of an offence triable under the Act is a pivotal question which has to be answered by the Court.”
In his appeal in the High Court, Mansoor had prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Special Judge (Gangster Act) and the order of property attachment passed by the Ghazipur DM.
The appellant’s counsel had submitted that no case was registered against Mansoor under the Gangster Act. The proceedings of attachment were initiated in February 2023 on the basis of a police report alleging the appellant had constructed shops at his immovable property from the resources acquired by committing offences described under the Gangster Act, he added.
Story continues below this ad
The counsel submitted that the property, where the construction was done, is the appellant’s parental property.
Citing the provisions of the Gangster Act, he said the state (government) has to establish that the disputed property was acquired by the appellant through a criminal act but “utterly failed” to do so.
The appellant, he said, had never been associated with any gang and there is no evidence that he had acquired any property by way of commission of offences described under the Gangster Act.
The Additional Government Advocate, however, opposed the appeal, claiming that there was no “illegality or perversity” in the order passed by the special judge (Gangster Act) and the attachment order by the district magistrate.
Story continues below this ad
Mukhtar Ansari was convicted by a trial court under the UP Gangster Act and was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, he said, adding the disputed property was in fact a ‘benami’ property belonging to him.
The bench concluded that it could not be disputed that the land was a parental property of the appellant. “Some variation between the alleged valuation of the property and the appellant’s source of income would not give rise to an inference that said building was constructed from the financial resources acquired through commission of offences,” it added.
The court stated that there was absolutely no material to show that appellant had been associated with Mukhtar Ansari’s or with any other gang.
“Considering entire facts, it appears that there is absolutely nothing to show any nexus between commission of any offence and the construction of the building/shops in question. It appears that the building/shops in question was attached by the District Magistrate merely because appellant is cousin of said Mukhtar Ansari,” the bench said, directing the DM to “release the disputed property forthwith”.
