Hyderabad: Tollywood actor K Ram Charan Tej and former Andhra cricket captain V Chamundeswaranath failed to secure the immediate release of villa plots worth over Rs 14 crore attached in the Emaar-APIIC money laundering case, with the SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal directing that their claim of being bona fide purchasers be examined by a special court.The Appellate Tribunal under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act (SAFEMA) declined to order the release of four Boulder Hills villa plots valued at Rs 14.1 crore, claimed by Ram Charan, Chamundeswaranath, Bijay Kumar Mandhani and K Lalitha. However, it permitted them to establish before the special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court that they had purchased the properties through accounted funds and without any connection to the alleged offence.The Aug 6 order was pronounced by Rajesh Malhotra, member of the single bench of the Appellate Tribunal in Delhi. The appeals challenged the 2013 confirmation of an Enforcement Directorate (ED) provisional attachment order issued in Sept 2012.The case stems from a 2011 CBI FIR relating to a 535-acre integrated residential and commercial project at Manikonda. Investigators alleged that villa plots were sold directly instead of developed villas and that, while transactions were officially recorded at Rs 5,000 per square yard, an amount of Rs 102.87 crore was collected over and above the recorded price and was neither accounted for nor shared with the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation.The tribunal observed that the appellants’ case appeared convincing if their agreements, supporting documents and payment claims were found to be genuine. It noted that any misdeclaration by the developer showing plots already allotted to buyers as “unsold” could amount to fraud on both the purchasers and investigating agencies.At the same time, it said it was not in a position to conclusively determine whether the appellants were genuine purchasers or acting in collusion with the accused. Such issues, it held, would have to be examined by the PMLA court after considering prosecution and defence evidence during trial.The tribunal permitted the ED to reverify the buyers’ claims. If the agency finds that they were victims of misdeclaration or misrepresentation by the developer, it may submit a report before the trial court regarding release of the properties to avoid unnecessary harassment. If the ED does not act within a reasonable period, the appellants may pursue their claims directly before the PMLA court, it said.Refusing to lift the attachment or set aside the earlier order, the tribunal said that if the trial court eventually accepts the appellants as bona fide purchasers, it may permit execution of sale deeds upon deposit of the remaining consideration through fixed deposit receipts before the court.The four plots are: B-44, measuring 1,458 square yards and valued at Rs 3.64 crore, claimed by Chamundeswaranath, who is presently BCCI Apex Council member; B-46, measuring 1,486 square yards and valued at Rs 3.71 crore, claimed by Mandhani; A-11, measuring 1,192 square yards and valued at Rs 2.98 crore, claimed by Lalitha; and B-30, measuring 1,545 square yards and valued at Rs 3.86 crore, claimed by Ram Charan.Buyers claim 95% paymentThe appellants contended that they responded to public advertisements and paid 95% of the agreed consideration through accounted funds. They said registration of sale deeds became impossible after the then Andhra Pradesh govt prohibited registrations in the project in Oct 2010. They alleged that cancellation letters relied upon by the developer were backdated and created to portray the plots as unsold.The tribunal noted differences in the evidence produced by the four appellants. Chamundeswaranath and Lalitha submitted agreements and payment particulars. Mandhani did not furnish payment details, while Ram Charan did not file an agreement of sale, though his payment was reflected in an IDBI Bank statement and was not disputed.The ED maintained that the plots remained in the possession of Emaar Hills Township Private Ltd when they were attached and argued that unregistered agreements of sale did not confer ownership rights. Relying on statements of company officials and cancellation letters (dated Oct 4, 2010), the agency contended that the plots remained unsold. It also stated that physical possession of the properties was taken through a panchnama in Sept 2013.The tribunal, meanwhiel, clarified that its observations would not prejudice the rights of any party before the special PMLA court.
