BHAWANA Vs. RAWAT HIMAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL No. 24 of 1955 and revision No. 9 of 1955, District Chittor, arise out of a single judgment of the Additional Commissioner, Udaipur, dated 1.8.1955, in a case under sec. 101 of the Quanun Mal Mewar 1947, and will be disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record as well. In view of the order that we are passing in the case we refrain from expressing any opinion upon the merits at this stage. Suffice to observe that a report was lodged by Panna Singh Shehna on 27.2.51, with the Munsarmat Officer, Bhainsrodgarh, to the effect that Khema Dhakar of Kotra had died heirless. Proceedings were carried out upon this report and objections were filed by one Bhawana claiming himself to be the brother of the deceased Rama, a son-in-law of the deceased Khema. This Rama had predeceased Khema. The actual interval between the deaths of these persons has not been ascertained in the case. The Tehsil-dar reported on 6.3.1954 to the S.D.O., begun that the property in dispute was proved to be heirless and hence it be escheated to the Thikana. The S.D.O. by his order, dated 13.12.1954, held after examining the record that the property movable or immovable left by the deceased Rama should be handed over to the objector Bhawana who had proved himself to be Rama's brother and the properly that belonged to Khema alone should be placed under forfeiture. The Tehsildar while implementing this decision entertained some doubts and hence sought a further clarification vide his report, dated 18.1.55 from the S.D.O. The S.D.O, in turn submitted the case to the Collector who by his order, dated 24.2.1955, directed that all the property, irrespective of the fact as to whether it belonged to Khem or Rama be placed under forfeiture. Bhawana went up in appeal against this decision before the Additional Commissioner, Udaipur. The learned Additional Commissioner observed that the S.D.O. had no jurisdiction to pass a final order in the matter as the value of the property exceeded Rs. 500/- No reference has been made to the legal provision on the point but we presume that the learned Additional Commissioner had item No 81 of the former Rajasthan Notification No. 6952, dated 17.8.1948 in mind. Obviously this has no reference to the present case for the provision relates to auction proceedings. Forfeiture of heirless property is a matter which is clearly governed by item No. 15, Schedule 1 of the Quanun Mal, Mewar which appears to have been overlooked by the learned Additional Commissioner. The Deputy Collector and the Tehsildar have been given full powers in respect of ordering forfeiture of heirless property by this provision.