The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea by fugitive don Dawood Ibrahim's mother Ameena Bi Kaskar and sister Haseena Parker and asked the Central government to seize his properties in Mumbai.
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea by fugitive don Dawood Ibrahim’s mother Ameena Bi Kaskar and sister Haseena Parker and asked the Central government to seize his properties in Mumbai. The SC bench led by RK Agrawal, passed the order against the plea challenging the attachment of ‘their’ properties. The bench said that these properties belonged to Dawood Ibrahim. His mother Amina Bi and sister Hasina Parker are both dead now. They have a total of seven residential properties in their names out of which two are in the mother’s name and five are in the sister’s name. These properties were allegedly acquired with Dawood Ibrahim’s ill-gotten wealth.
Amina Bi and Hasina Parker had approached the apex court challenging the order of the Delhi High Court, which had turned down their plea against the order for seizure of their properties in Mumbai under the Smugglers And Foreign Exchange Manipulators Act (Forfeiture Of Property) (SAFEMA). Last year, it had sold three of Dawood’s properties during a public auction in south Mumbai.
The bid was won by the Saifee Burhani Upliftment Trust which paid the auction amount and became the first body to buy properties of one of the most-wanted criminals of India.
The three properties that went under the hammer were – six flats in Dambarwala building (Room no: 18-20, 25, 26 and 28), Hotel Raunaq Afroz on 33 Pakmodia Street and Shabnam Guest House at Bhendi Bazar, the last known addresses of Dawood Ibrahim.
The Shabnam Guest House was bought for Rs 3.053 crore while Dawood’s ancestral property – Damarwala building was auctioned at Rs 3.53 crores. The highest bid for Hotel Raunaq Afroz was Rs 4.53 crore.
SAFEMA provides for forfeiture of “illegally acquired properties” of smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators and their relatives. Amina Bi and Hasina Parker had pleaded that they were not duly served forfeiture notices and so the subsequent proceedings to attach their properties at Nagpada in south Mumbai were illegal and they should be given a fresh opportunity to challenge the forfeiture notices.