| Headnote |
Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956– s.2(4), Proviso to s.4, ss. 6, 7– Testator died in 1987 without any legal heirs, leaving valuable properties situated in Khetri, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan – Before his death, he executed Will bequeathing his properties to a Trust – Trustees filed probate petition before the Delhi High Court for probate of the Will – Objections filed by the agnates of the deceased testator – Probate petition dismissed – Appeal pending before the Division Bench – Direction by the Collector, Jhunjhunu to initiate proceedings under the Ecsheats Act in respect of the properties left – Tehsildar took over possession of the properties – Writ petition filed by respondents challenging three communications/ orders initiating the proceedings under the Act – Further, the Collector rejected the claims of the Trust based on Will and also the claim of the agnates – Appeal of the Trust before the Board of Revenue – Order of the Collector stayed, appeal pending – Thereafter, writ petition allowed – On appeal, held (per Curiam) : Matter referred to larger bench – Per Banumathi, J. Doctrine of escheat postulates that where an individual dies intestate and does not leave behind an heir qualified to succeed to the property, the property devolves on the Government – Absence of any heir is precondition for initiation of the proceedings for escheating of the property to the Government – In the present case, when the agnates/ other persons claiming right in the estate withdrew their objections, naturally they accepted the claim/right of the Trust, which claims through the Will – Inference has to be drawn that they have no right of claim in the properties– Further, when the appeals were pending before the Delhi High Court and the Board of Revenue involving disputed questions, the High Court ought to have directed the parties to avail efficacious alternative remedy – High Court erred in quashing the three communications and directing the State to hand over the possession of the properties to the respondents – Further, due procedure was followed as per the Escheats Act – State of Rajasthan right in treating the property as ‘bona vacantia’ and initiating proceedings under the Escheats Act – Per Banerjee, J. (Dissenting) : Doctrine of escheats postulates that where an individual dies intestate and does not leave behind any heir qualified to succeed to the property, the property devolves on the Government – An abandoned property is a property for which no claim has been made for a substantially long period, such as to raise the presumption that the property is abandoned – In the present case, there were claimants who objected to the grant of probate – Even though they withdrew the objections, that would not make any difference to their status as agates/cognates of the deceased testator – Further, judgment dismissing the probate petition is of no consequence – If a will fails, the property has to be treated as intestate, devolving upon the natural heirs in accordance with the applicable laws of succession – Dismissal of the probate case might mean that the Trust cannot lay claim to the properties but, that does not make the properties escheated properties– Unless there were complete failure of heirs, the Escheats would not be attracted – Further, the writ petition filed in 1987 had been pending in the High Court for about three decades – Once the writ petition had been entertained and kept pending, it should not be rejected on the ground of existence of alternative remedy of appeal before the Board of Revenue – Communications impugned were issued without any finding of complete failure of heirs – Constitution of India – Arts. 226, 296 – Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – ss.3(a), (c), 8-13, 29 & 30 – Indian Succession Act, 1925– ss.195, 276 – Doctrines – Will. Constitution of India – Art.226 – Existence of alternative remedy – Entertainment of writ petition – Testator died in 1987 without any legal heirs, leaving valuable properties situated in Khetri, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan – Before his death, he executed Will, bequeathing his properties to a Trust – Probate petition filed by the Trustees before the Delhi High Court – Dismissed – Appeal pending before the Division Bench – Writ petition filed by the respondents challenging the taking over possession of the properties by the Tehsildar – Further, the Collector rejected the claims of the Trust based on Will and also of the agnates – Appeal pending before the Board of Revenue – Thereafter, writ petition allowed – Held: Per Banumathi, J. When the appeals were pending before the Delhi High Court and before the Board of Revenue involving disputed questions, the High Court ought to have directed the parties to avail efficacious alternative remedy – Per Banerjee, J. (Dissenting) High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition– Remedy of appeal availed by the Trustees was against the order of the Collector passed in 2016 almost two decades after the writ petition was filed in 1987 – Supervening circumstance of the order of the Collector and the appeal therefrom, would not justify the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of existence of alternative remedy – High Court rightly allowed the writ petition. |
