HC rejects petition by Tiger Memon’s relatives against forfeiture of 2 flats

The bench further noted that despite the petitioners being aware of the forfeiture order, they had failed to take any step to assert ownership rights or seek a declaration of title against the Memons

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed by five relatives of 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts accused Tiger Memon challenging the forfeiture of two flats connected to him in Kurla. The court observed that the petitioners had no right to occupy the flats and could not reopen the case, as it would lead to endless litigation.

TIGER MEMON - MAIN ACCUSED IN BOMBAY BLAST IN 1993 - TERRORIST - MILITANT

In 1980, Memon’s parents, Abdul Razak Suleman Memon and Hanifa Memon, purchased the adjoining flats in Baug-e-Rehmat CHS at Kurla. In 1992, the flats were transferred to their daughter-in-law, Reshma, and subsequently to other relatives. However, no documents evidencing the transfer are available on record.

The petitioners said that they had paid the Memons ₹ 6,75,000 for the flats in 1992 and annexed bank transactions to substantiate the claim. However, the registered sale deed continued to bear Tiger Memon’s parents’ names.

Following the 1993 serial bomb blasts in Mumbai, a joint show-cause notice under the Smugglers And Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture Of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) was issued against Tiger Memon, his wife, parents, brothers, brothers’ wives and his associates. The notice recorded that there were reasons to believe that the properties were illegally acquired.

The notice highlighted that Abdul Razak Memon and Reshma Memon were the owners of the flats but the occupants were the petitioner Zaibunissa Khan, her deceased husband and another person who is Abdul Memon’s brother-in-law. Subsequently, the properties were forfeited via an order dated September 28, 1993.

Abdul and Hanifa Memon, along with several other relatives, challenged this order before the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi. Meanwhile, Tiger Memon was named an accused in the 1993 bomb blasts case and declared an absconding terrorist under the TADA Act.

In January 1994, the TADA Court attached the flats along with other properties of the Memon family and a court receiver of the Bombay high court was appointed for the attached properties. The petitioner and her husband continued to remain in possession of the flats as agents of the receiver. They claimed to have paid a royalty of ₹ 2,000 per month from 1994 until 2008 and issued public notices in different newspapers declaring that they had purchased the flats in 1992 and were in exclusive possession of these.

On November 4, 1999, the appellate tribunal rejected all the appeals filed by the Memons. This was challenged by Memon’s relatives in 2000 in the Bombay high court, which, on March 24, 2005, dismissed the petition.

In March this year, the TADA court lifted the attachment for several properties and released them in favour of the central government. Aggrieved by this, Memon’s relatives moved the Bombay high court on June 25, 2025. Meanwhile, SAFEMA in July 2025 directed the petitioner to peacefully hand over the flats by August 2, 2025.

Rejecting the petition, Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice Gautam A Ankhad said that the Memons had failed to establish that the flats were not illegally acquired property. With no registered transfer deeds in their favour, the court held that the petitioners could not claim any right, title or interest in the flats, and could not be regarded as their owners.

Noting that all the earlier challenges to the forfeiture had failed, the bench further noted that despite the petitioners being aware of the forfeiture order, they had failed to take any step to assert ownership rights or seek a declaration of title against the Memons. “It is inconceivable that a bona fide purchaser for value would remain silent and refrain from asserting such rights for over three decades”, it observed.