RAMNATH Vs. SURAJMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, which has been wrongly described as a revision, has been filed against an order of the Collector Bundi, dated 25.4.1957, passed presumably under sec. 6(9) of the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. In view of the order that we are making in this case it is not necessary to discuss the merits at any length at this stage. The learned Collector finding that there were two claimants to the property directed that the same be restored to the person from whose possession it was taken. It was further observed by him that "the parties can go in civil court for the decision of their claims." We would invite the attention of the learned Collector to the provisions contained in secs 4, 5 and 6 of the Act. Upon receipt of information as to the existence within this Tehsil of any property to which this Act applies the Tehsildar shall ascertain if there is any person entitled to such property, shall prepare an inventory thereof and after taking possession of it in the prescribed manner shall make a report to the Collector. Sec. 5 requires the Collector to keep and maintain a register of properties. Upon receipt of a report under sec. 4 the Collector shall make such order as he thinks proper for the safe custody of the property and shall issue a proclamation calling upon all the persons having any interest in the property to prefer their claims under sec. 6. Sub -sees. 2, 3, 4 and 5 deal with the manner of issue of proclamation, income of the property, decision of the authority where the property is situated in one or more district and collection of information from public records subject to the condition that private rights are not infringed or unnecessary trouble or vaxation is not occasioned to individuals Sub -sec. 6 deals with a case where the Collector finds that the claimant is entitled to such property and in that case be can deliver the same to him. Sub -sec. 7 deals with a case where complicated questions of law as to title or status are involved or where there are two or more claimants. This sub -section runs as follows : - -

(3.) Sub -sec. 8 authorises the collector to make over enquiry under this section to any assistant collector subordinate to him. Sub -sec. 9 lays down that if the collector is satisfied after enquiry in accordance with this section that the property in question is of the nature to which the Act does not apply he shall order the proceedings to be closed and allow it to remain in possession of that person in whose possession it may have remained but for action under sec. 4 or 6. By an examination of these provisions it would become clear that in case where there are two or more claimants in respect of the same property the collector is bound to require all or any of them to apply for a succession certificate in respect of such property or institution of a suit for a declaration of title within such period not exceeding six months in the aggregate and if such suit or application ha9 been made, the collector shall stay the proceedings before him and the disposal,of the property shall be subject to the result thereof. The action contemplated in sub -clause (9) is to be taken after the mandatory provisions of sec. 7 have been complied with and the civil court has given its decision in the matter. Unless the claimants where they are more than one and have been directed to seek a declaration of title from a civil court it would not be proper for the collector to take any action under sub -sec. (9) for otherwise it would tantamount to usurpation of functions of civil court. As can be gathered from the provisions contained in sub -clause (6) the collector is authorised to take action regarding delivery of possession in that case along, where there is only one claimant and he is able to Satisfy the collector as to his right and title to receive and hold the property. But where the claimants are more than one the mandatory provisions of sub -clause (7) are to be complied with. The learned collector has obviously proceeded to take action under sub -clause (9) without having complied with the requirements of subclause (7). We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Collector Bundi date 25.4.1957 and remand the case back to him with the direction that it be tried and decided afresh in the light of the observations made above.