BHERA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the Collector, Udaipur dated 24. 10. 58.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. A report of Lawarsi was made relating to certain properties. The Tehsildar, Gogunda having enquired submitted the case to the Additional Collector, Udaipur, clearly stating that the property was not "lawarsi" and one Bhaja first cousin of deceased Nanda Gadri was alive. The learned Collector issued necessary proclamation, but no objections were filed by anybody in response to the same. On this basis the learned Additional Collector ordered the submission of the case to the learned District Judge for issuing of necessary orders. It is against this order that this appeal has been preferred. It is admitted by the appellants that no objections were preferred in response to the notice issued by the Collector. But their contention is that when their claims had already been filed before the Tehsildar in response to the notice issued by him, the learned Collector should have enquired into the same and passed necessary orders before passing the orders that he has done. Sub-sec. 5 of sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956 dearly enjoins upon the Collector to obtain full information from the public records and by personal enquiries respecting any property to which this Act applies, being in all cases careful not to infringe any private rights or to occasion unnecessary trouble or vexation to individuals. This clearly meant that the man in possession as well as the other persons bringing forward their different claims should have been specifically examined and their claims enquired into by the learned Additional Collector before ordering the submission of the case to the learned District Judge. Under proviso to sub-sec. 6 of sec. 6 - any claim preferred even after the expiry of the time specified in sub-sec. (1) of this section can be accepted and enquired into if the claimant is able to satisfy that he had sufficient reasons for not preferring the claim within the requisite time. The learned Additional Collector should have applied his mind to all these provisions and then passed necessary orders in the matter. As he has not so done we accept this appeal and remand the case back to the learned Additional Collector for re-disposal according to law in accordance with the observations made above. .