New Delhi: Ancestral property is not immune from attachment in proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Delhi High Court has held.
A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja observed that the law has no exception carved out for ancestral or inherited properties in matters of attachment in money laundering proceedings.
The court passed the verdict on an appeal by a man against a 2025 order of the appellate tribunal under the PMLA, which upheld the confirmation of provisional attachment of his property in Sainik Vihar by the Enforcement Directorate.
The appellant said the property was never purchased by him and was bought by his father out of his own income in 1991 in their joint name, and therefore could not be attached.
The court, however, held that the appellant’s stand that ancestral property could not be attached unless it was purchased from illicit funds, was misconceived and contrary to the scheme of PMLA.
It observed that the adjudicating authority appreciated the evidence and recorded a finding that the property in question represented a value equivalent to ‘proceeds of crime‘ allegedly generated from scheduled offences in the case and the appellate tribunal’s decision also reflected due application of mind.
“The plea of the property being ancestral does not ipso facto grants immunity from attachment under the PMLA. The statute does not carve out an exception for ancestral or inherited properties, and thus, they are not immune from attachment,” the court said in the order passed on February 16 as it dismissed the appeal.
The appellant contended that as per Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA, only “tainted properties” obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity could be termed as “proceeds of crime“.
Since the right of the appellant in the subject property had come through his deceased father, it was wholly impermissible to attach it, he claimed.
The agency said proceeds of crime acquired by the appellant were in the form of foreign exchange, which had been remitted abroad and were, therefore, not available.
The present property belonging to the appellant was hence attached as being of equivalent value” under the PMLA, the court was informed.
