HURJI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE UDAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition for writ a challenge is given to the order dated 29. 5. 1999 passed by the District Judge, Udaipur making a proclamation of vesting of property with State under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1956 ). The petitioner has also given challenge to the proceedings initiated under the proclamation dated 12. 7. 1991 made by the Additional Collector, Udaipur under Section 6 of the Act of 1956.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that one late Shri Kaliya who was having Khatedari of agricultural land in his name in Khasra No. 12 measuring 25 Bighas 17 Biswas. THE land aforesaid was alleged to be in possession and also under active cultivation of the petitioner after death of Shri Kaliya. THE Additional Collector, Udaipur registered a case under the Act of 1956 and issued a proclamation as envisaged under sub-section (1) (b) of Section 6 of the Act of 1956. According to the petitioners, the proclamation so made was not in consonance to the provisions under Section 6 of the Act of 1956 and was also issued without giving appropriate notice to the person interested. It is also contended by the petitioners that no vide publicity was given to the proclamation and the particulars of the land sought to be declared escheat were also not mentioned in the proclamation. Substantially, it is contended that the proclamation made under Section 6 (1) (b) was not in accordance with law, therefore, the entire proceedings taken in pursuant thereto deserves to be quashed.

(3.) FROM reading of the provisions of Section 6 (1) (b) of the Act, 1956 it is crystal clear that the Collector on receipt of report under Section 4 shall make order in respect to the possession, maintenance, management, safe custody and taking care of each item of every property specified in the report and then shall issue a proclamation specifying the prescribed particulars of the property and calling upon all persons having any interest therein or right thereto prefer their claims in respect thereof, in the present case, the Collector has not given any particulars about the property reported under Section 4 of the Act of 156. The specifications of the property in proclamation under Section 6 (1) (b) is not an empty formality but is mandatory. The purpose of specifying the prescribed particulars of the property in proclamation is to make the persons interested known to the property and also enable them to submit their claims effectively. The non-mentioning of the specifications of property in fact frustrates the proceedings under the Act of 1956. In the present case, the Additional Collector in the proclamation dated 12. 7. 1991 has not given any particulars of the property reported under Section 4 of the Act of 1956. he has simply stated that the list of the property so reported can be seen in office during office hours. The non-mentioning of specifications of the property reported in the proclamation makes the proclamation and its subsequent proceedings void.