R KANDASAMI Vs. COLLECTOR OF MADRAS CHEPAUK MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition an interesting question relating to interpretation of the INdian Treasure Trove Act, 1878 as amended in the State of Tamil Nadu under Act 8 of 1964 has been raised.

(2.) UNDISPUTEDLY the present petitioner is the owner of the land from which three bars of gold had been found by the labourers while they were demolishing the existing structure and digging the land for construction of new house for the petitioner on 20.10.1987. On 26.10.1987, the present petitioner filed an application before the respondent intimating about such discovery of gold bards and deposited the same before him. Subsequently the Collector issued notice under Sec.5 of the Indian Treasure Trove Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) to the persons claiming treasure to appear personally. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice, the present petitioner filed further application claiming that the gold bards which had been admittedly found from his land should be handed over to him. No other claim was filed by any other person. At this stage, the Collector intimated the petitioner under the impugned letter to file a suit for the purpose of establishing his right over the treasure which had been found. It is obvious that the respondent purported to act under Sec.8 of the Act.

(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that duty has been cast on the following persons to give notice as contemplated under Sec.4 of the Act. (1) Finder of the treasure, (2) Owner of the place in which treasure was found if he is not the finder, and (3) Occupier of such place neither he is the finder nor the owner. In the present case it is obvious that the petitioner being the owner of the place had given the necessary notice.