JUDGMENT Amar Saran, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, learned AGA and perused the record. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged in this case.
2. A very short submission has been made in this case that as per the order of attachment of the disputed property under Section 14(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 12.10.2004 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, the said property was an ancestral property as it belonged to the applicant, Prabhu Dayals father, Bhagwandin, and even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that the appellant Prabhu Dayals son Khajji @ Rupesh has spent money in the renovation of the said property, as the property had been acquired in a legal manner, I he property could not have been attached. In this connection reliance has been placed on Section 14(1) of the Act, which is being quoted hereinbelow.
14. Attachment of property. (1) If the District Magistrate has reason to believe that any property, whether moveable or immovable, in possession of any person has been acquired by a gangster as a result of the commission of an offence triable under this Act, he may order attachment of such property whether or not cognizance of such offence has been taken by any Court.
(2)...
3. As the order attaching the property clearly slates that the properly belongs to Khajji's grandfather, hence it cannot be said that the property had been acquired by a gangster as a result of commission of an offence triable under the said Act.
4. The appeal, therefore, succeeds on the aforesaid short point.
5. In the result, the impugned orders dated 12.10.2004 and 29.9.2005 are set aside and the property in dispute is directed to be released in favour of the appellant forthwith.