Case: THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS Vs. LORD NOTHBOOK AND ORS

R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 17.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in DB Civil Writ Petition No.2713 of 1987 in and by which the High Court quashed the communications/orders dated 03.07.1987, 22.07.1987 and 03.08.1987 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue, Govt. of Rajasthan, District Collector, Jhunjhunu and Tehsildar, Khetri respectively in the matter of taking over the properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh by the State under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956. 3. Sh. Raja Sardar Singh expired on 28.01.1987 intestate and without any legal heirs. Sh. Raja Sardar Singh was a Bar at law from England, a member of the Constituent Assembly, a Rajya Sabha Member and also Ambassador to Laos and a highly educated person. He died on 28.01.1987 as a childless widower and at that time, he was a resident of No.5, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi. Sh. Raja Sardar Singh left behind him number of valuable properties such as Khetri House Delhi, Hotel Khetri Jaipur, Kothi Sukh Mahal, Kothi Jai Niwas, Kothi Amar Hall, Nizamat Building, Ajit Niwas Bagh Farm, Record Room, Havili Prohitji Wali, Dera Brijlaji Wala, Farrash Khana Chabutra, Tin Shed Mela Gugaji and Sabka Patwar Ghar, Jhunjhunu and other movable and immovable properties. On 16.02.1987, the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Khetri sent a letter to the District Collector, Jhunjhunu stating that an information has been received that Sh. Raja Sardar Singh expired in Mumbai on 28.01.1987 without any legal heir and that he has executed one Will on 30.10.1985. Sh. Raja Sardar Singh executed a Codicil on 07.11.1985. Based on the Will/Codicil, a trust called ?Khetri Trust? was constituted with four Trustees. 4. On 24.02.1987, one Dwarka Prasad Parik filed application before the Tehsildar, Jaipur stating that Sh. Raja Sardar Singh died without heirs and that there are several valuable properties left behind him. The said Dwarka Prasad alleged that after the death of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh, the Manager, Nirbhay Singh and other staff are removing the valuable articles by loading in the trucks and therefore, immediate action be taken which is necessary for taking the properties into State custody. The said Dwarka Prasad also prayed that the properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh be declared as the properties of the State and immediate action be taken for its management so that the same can be saved from displacement and removal. 5. Public Notice by the Tehsildar:- A probe was made upon the letter dated 16.02.1987 by one Mangilal who informed the District Collector, Jhunjhunu about the death of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh and that he died without any legal heir. Hence, the first condition for initiating proceedings under the provisions of Section 4 of the Rajasthan Escheats Act, 1956 i.e.?Upon receipt of information as to the existence within Tehsil of any property of which the Act applies. Whether or not in the possession of any person? has been satisfied. The SDO, Khetri has sent a report on 16.02.1987 to the District Collector, Jhunjhunu stating that Sh. Raja Sardar Singh expired in Mumbai on 28.01.1987 without any legal heir and that he has executed one Will by virtue of which a trust by name ?Khetri Trust? was constituted and late Sh. Raja Sardar Singh has donated his movable and immovable properties to the said trust and the said report of the SDO has also made it clear that Sh. Raja Sardar Singh has no brother or sister nor any child and that he was a widower. On 27.02.1987, the Tehsildar, Jaipur brought out a Public Notice inter alia stating that any person who has any interest in the properties of the deceased Sh. Raja Sardar Singh, should be present before him. On 28.02.1987, the District Collector sent a letter to the Tehsildar to prepare the inventories of the moveable and immoveable properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh for the purpose of proceeding under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956. On 04.03.1987, Naib Tehsildar issued a notice to Nirbhay Singh, Manager of Hotel Khetri informing him that he has been appointed as the Inquiry Officer and directing him to produce all the documents on 05.03.1987. In response to the said Notice, Nirbhay Singh, Manager on behalf of Khetri Trust filed response stating that Sh. Raja Sardar Singh, before his death, had vested his movable and immovable properties in Khetri Trust and that the Trustees are running the Hotel and that the properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh do not fall within the ambit of Article 296 of the Constitution of India or under the provisions of the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956 ( ?The Escheats Act?). 6. The Tehsildar issued a Notice dated 07.03.1987 to Nirbhay Singh calling upon him to appear personally on 12.03.1987 and produce all the documents pertaining to the said properties or else it would be presumed that the properties which are in possession of Nirbhay Singh are completely unclaimed. The said Nirbhay Singh appeared before the Tehsildar on 12.03.1987 and filed his response informing about filing of Probate Case before the Delhi High Court and that the Trust is in actual possession of the Khetri House and the entire movable and immovable properties and that he is representing as Manager of the Trust. When the matters stood thus pending before the Tehsildar, the Trustees filed Testamentary Case No.26 of 1987 on 10.03.1987 before the High Court of Delhi for probate of the Will. 7. To initiate the proceedings under the Escheats Act, the Collector addressed a letter dated 15.06.1987 to the Government of Rajasthan. After referring to the said letter of the Collector dated 15.06.1987, Dy. Secretary, Government of Rajasthan passed the order dated 03.07.1987 which reads as under:- ?Government of RajasthanRevenue (Group-3) Department No.10(4)/Raj/Group-3/G/87 Dated 3.7.1987To District Collector, Jhunjhunu Sub: Regarding possession and ownership of movable and immovable properties of late Raja Bahadur Singh Khetri. Ref: Your letter No.1955/Nyay/87 dated 15.06.1987 Sir, From the captioned subject and contents of your order, it is deemed that Shri Raja Bahadur Singh had died intestate. The properties of late Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh would come under the Rajasthan Escheat Regulation Act 1956, therefore proceedings under the relevant provisions of Rajasthan Escheat Regulation Act 1956 be initiated in regard to the properties situated at Jhunjhunu and the concerned District Collectors be informed about the properties lying in other Districts. In regard to the properties situated outside the State of Rajasthan concerned State Government be informed. After doing the needful, the undersigned will be informed. R.S. MittalDeputy SecretaryGovernment of Rajasthan? After referring to the above proceeding of Government of Rajasthan, the District Collector vide letter dated 22.07.1987 addressing the Tehsildar, Khetri stated that the properties of deceased Sh. Raja Sardar Singh situated in the State of Rajasthan are governed by the provisions of the Escheats Act and directed that the proceedings under the Escheats Act be initiated in respect of properties of late Sh. Raja Sardar Singh of Khetri which are situated in Khetri, District Jhunjhunu. In the said letter, the District Collector further stated that the possession of the unclaimed properties be taken over in favour of the State and to take necessary action in this regard at the earliest. The letter of the District Collector also states that the other properties owned by Sh. Raja Sardar Singh in other States or abroad be collected and action be taken accordingly. Based on the said proceedings of the District Collector, the Tehsildar has taken possession of the properties in Khetri vide Spot Possession Report (31.07.1987). In the Spot Possession Report, it was mentioned that the seals of Khetri Trust were affixed on the gates and keys of some of the other properties are with Khetri Trust in Delhi. The Spot Possession Report also refers to leasing of some of the properties from the time of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh and running of a School in one of the properties. The immovable properties, in particular, the agricultural lands and orchards were attached by the proceeding dated 03.08.1987. The Tehsildar submitted a report to the SDO, Khetri containing a list of properties which were taken over in custody of the State. In the said Report, it was stated that some of the properties were under lock put by the Trust. The Tehsildar also sent another Report dated 24.05.1989 to the District Collector, Jhunjhunu containing a list of properties which were taken over in custody of the State and also that some of the properties were in lock and that the keys are with the Trust. 8. Other Proceedings:- Various cases have been filed in respect of movable and immovable properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh. First one was the application under Section 195 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and the application under Section 192 for the appointment of the Curator before the District Court at Jaipur. Though the details of these applications are not available in the materials placed before this Court, the same have been referred to in the letter of the SDO dated 15.04.1991. 9. Writ Petition No.2713 of 1987:- Parmeshwar Prasad filed Civil Writ Petition No.2713 of 1987 challenging initiation of proceedings under the Escheats Act and the communications/orders dated 03.07.1987, 22.07.1987 and 03.08.1987 by the Dy. Secretary, Revenue, Govt. of Rajasthan, District Collector, Jhunjhunu and Tehsildar, Khetri respectively. On 19.11.2001, the High Court of Rajasthan adjourned the proceedings in the said writ petition sine-die awaiting the decision of the Delhi High Court in Testamentary Case No.26 of 1987. The said writ petition has taken up by the High Court after fifteen years and was allowed by the impugned order. 10. Testamentary Case No.26 of 1987:- Based on the Will allegedly executed by Sh. Raja Sardar Singh on 30.10.1985, Parmeshwar Prasad and the Trustees of Khetri Trust have filed the Testamentary Case seeking for probate of the Will read with codicil dated 07.11.1985. The agnates of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh raised objections for grant of probate. During the course of the proceedings, the Delhi High Court was informed that the provisions of Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act have already been invoked and that the State has taken possession of some of the properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh. By an elaborate judgment dated 03.07.2012, the Delhi High Court dismissed the Testamentary Case No.26 of 1987 and held that it is for the State of Rajasthan to decide in accordance with law in pursuance of the proceedings taken under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956. The relevant observations made by the Delhi High Court in the said Testamentary Case will be shortly referred to at the appropriate place. The executors of the will/trustees have preferred an appeal against the said judgment dated 03.07.2012 before the Delhi High Court and the said appeal is pending. But no stay was granted by the Division Bench in the said appeal. 11. Application by Arjun Singh, father of Respondent No.8: Arjun Singh, father of Respondent No.8 claiming to be the agnate of the deceased, submitted his objections before the Tehsildar stating that the alleged Will dated 30.10.1985 is not legally valid and that the said Will has been executed due to the influence of Lady Olga Manning, a foreigner, who was close to Sh. Raja Sardar Singh. 12. Order of the Collector dated 02.02.2016:- The Collector has passed a detailed order on 02.02.2016 rejecting the claims of the Khetri Trust based on Will and also the claims of the agnates namely Gajendra Singh, Surender Singh, Hemender Singh, Nagender Singh and Yogendra Singh. The District Collector has referred to the order of the Delhi High Court in Testamentary Case and various other proceedings and held that Sh. Raja Sardar Singh died intestate and issueless and therefore, Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act read with Sub-section 9(b) of Section 6 of the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956 automatically comes into play and all properties left behind by Sh. Raja Sardar Singh shall vest in the State Government of Rajasthan. The District Collector directed that copy of the order be forwarded to the Public Prosecutor to be presented before the District Judge, Jaipur for obtaining a vesting order/further course of legal action as mandated under the Act. 13. Appeal before the Board of Revenue:- Against the order passed by the District Collector, in terms of Section 7 of the Escheats Act, Khetri Trust has filed appeal before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue has stayed the order of the District Collector vide order dated 12.04.2016 and the said appeal is pending. 14. Impugned Order:- It is in this background, the High Court has taken up the Civil Writ Petition No.2713 of 1987 which was pending for about thirty years in which the trustees have challenged the communications/orders dated 03.07.1987, 22.07.1987 and 03.08.1987. Though subsequent to those three communications/orders, various orders have come to be passed by the High Court, by the District Collector and the appeals pending before the High Court and the Board of Revenue, the High Court proceeded to quash those communications/orders dated 03.07.1987, 22.07.1987 and 03.08.1987 passed by the Dy. Secretary, Revenue, Govt. of Rajasthan, District Collector, Jhunjhunu and Tehsildar, Khetri respectively by holding that the provisions of the Escheats Act have not been complied with and that the action by the State in taking over the possession of the properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh is arbitrary and unsustainable. 15. On behalf of the appellant-State of Rajasthan, learned Additional Solicitor General Mr. P.S. Narsimha has submitted that due to the absence of any rightful owner, State of Rajasthan has rightly initiated the proceedings under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956. It was submitted that the High Court has not appreciated the purport of Sections 4 and 6 of the Escheats Act which vests the power with the concerned authorities to initiate proceedings under the Act and to take possession of the escheat properties and the High Court erred by ignoring the fact that the communications/orders dated 03.07.1987, 22.07.1987 and 03.08.1987 were in terms of the provisions of the Act. The learned Additional Solicitor General further submitted that the Trustees having filed the appeal against the dismissal of the Testamentary Case and the agnates having filed the appeal before the Board of Revenue challenging the order of the Collector, the High Court should have directed the parties to await till disposal of the appeal by the Delhi High Court and the appeal by the Board of Revenue. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that by the order dated 19.11.2001, the High Court having adjourned the Writ Petition No.2713 of 1987 sine-die awaiting the decision of the Delhi High Court, ought to have awaited the decision of the Delhi High Court in the appeal preferred against the judgment in the Testamentary Case. It was contended that after the three communication/orders which were under challenge in Writ Petition No.2713 of 1987, orders came to be passed by the courts, competent authorities and while so, the High Court erred in ignoring the subsequent judgments/orders and the impugned order is not sustainable. 16. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the respondents Dr. A. M. Singhvi and Mr. Paras Kuhad submitted that there were agnates and cognates of the deceased of which the State was well aware and therefore, the properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh cannot be said to be lawaris-abandoned property. Learned Senior counsel submitted that for escheating the properties, there should be total absence of any claimant for a reasonable period of seven years and that the character of the property as an abandoned property should be conclusively established. By placing reliance upon Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v. State of Bombay and Others AIR 1958 SC 328 , it was contended that power under Article 296 of the Constitution can be exercised only as long as there is no claimant and the property assumes the character of an abandoned property and that the case in hand cannot be said to be one of absolute failure of heirs. It was submitted that the onus to establish that the property is bona vacantia is upon the Government and the burden of proof is very high. Reliance was placed upon State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh and Others (1983) 3 SCC 118 , Kutchi Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust Evam Anna Kshetra Trust Through Velji Devshi Patel v. Collector, Haridwar and Others (2017) 16 SCC 418. On behalf of the respondents, it was urged that initiation of the proceedings under the Escheats Act and taking over the possession thereof is erroneous as there are claims by the agnates and also by the Trustees. It was submitted that assuming that the Escheats Act was applicable, the possession was taken over from the Trust who was in ?present and actual possession? which is in contravention of proviso to Section 4 of the Escheats Act. It was further submitted that taking over possession of the properties by the State from Kherti Trust is illegal and that the same is in violation to proviso to Section 4(1) of the Escheats Act. 17. I have carefully considered the submission and perused the impugned judgment and the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Testamentary Case No.26 of 1987 and other materials on record. The following points arise for consideration:- (i) Whether the High Court was right in saying that the initiation of proceedings under Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956 is not maintainable? Whether the learned Judge was right in saying that even assuming that the Act is applicable, taking over possession of properties is in violation of the provisions of the Act? (ii) Whether the High Court was right in quashing the communications/orders dated 03.07.1987, 22.07.1987 and 03.08.1987 by ignoring the various subsequent orders passed by the Delhi High Court and by the competent authorities under the Escheats Act? (iii) When the appeal against the probate case is pending before the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi and also the appeal against the order passed by the District Collector is pending before the Board of Revenue, whether the High Court was right in quashing the three communications/orders dated 03.07.1987, 22.07.1987 and 03.08.1987 in and by which the proceedings were initiated in terms of the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956? 18. Contention of the respondents is that it is not a case of bona vacantia (failure of legal heirs) and the very invocation of proceedings under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956 is not sustainable. Next limb of arguments is that even assuming that invocation of the Rajasthan Escheats Act is correct, the provisions of the Act have not been strictly followed by the State Government and the entire proceedings are vitiated. Let me consider the merits of the first contention that invocation of proceedings under the Act was not warranted as it was not a case of lawaris-abandoned property. 19. Escheat is a bona vacantia and can be exercised only in case of abandoned property:- Article 296 is the constitutional provision enabling vesting of the property with the State Government if a person dies intestate and without any heir qualified to succeed to his or her property. Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 embodies the principle of escheat. Section 29 provides as follows:- ?29. Failure of heirs.—If an intestate has left no heir qualified to succeed to his or her property in accordance with the provisions of this Act, such property shall devolve on the Government; and the Government shall take the property subject to all the obligations and liabilities to which an heir would have been subject.? The doctrine of escheat postulates that where an individual dies intestate and does not leave behind an heir who is qualified to succeed to the property, the property devolves on the Government. 20. Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act comes into operation only on there being a failure of heirs. The word ‘failure? used in Section 29 makes it clear that there must be a total absence of any heir to the person dying intestate. The absence of any heir is a pre-condition for initiation of the proceedings for escheating of the property to the Government. 21. It was held in State of Punjab v. Balwant Singh and Others 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 108 that the State Government does not take the property ?as a rival or preferential heir of the deceased but as the lord paramount of the whole soil of the country?. In Balwant Singh?s case, the Supreme Court held as under:- "11. The property is escheated to the Government when an intestate has left no heir qualified to succeed to his or her property. The property shall devolve on the Government and the Government shall take the property subject to all the obligations and liabilities of the property. It is only in the event of the deceased leaving behind no heir to succeed, the State steps in to take the property. 12. The State does not take the property as a rival or preferential heir of the deceased but as the lord paramount of the whole soil of the country. In Halsbury?s Laws of England, 4th ed. Vol. 17 para 1439 it is stated as follows: ?To whom land escheated.— Escheat in the case of death intestate before 1926 was to the mesne lord if he could be found but, as since 1290 sub-infeudation has been forbidden, in the great majority of cases there was no record of the mesne tenure, and the escheat was to the Crown as the lord paramount of the whole soil of the country.? 13. Section 29, in our opinion, shall not operate in favour of the State if there is any other heir of the intestate. Indeed, Section 29 itself indicates that there must be failure of heirs. ‘Failure? of heirs means the total absence of heirs to the intestate………….?. 22. Contention of the learned Senior counsel appearing for respondents No.5 to 8 is that Section 4 applies only to the property described in Section 2(4) which refers to a property ?vesting in the State?. It was further submitted that the Rajasthan Escheats Act, 1956 applies only to properties vesting in the State qua ultima heres under Article 296 by escheat or as bona vacantia and thus, before initiation of any proceeding under the Act, the property must have acquired the character of an abandoned property. 23. Contention of the respondents No.5 to 8 is that the moment there is a claim, escheating does not arise. It was submitted that escheat is a bona vacantia and can be exercised only in case of abandoned property and ?failure of heirs? and in the present case, there is no finding as to ?failure of heirs?. It was contended that for claim of escheat by the Government, it should be established that the property is in the nature of lawaris/abandoned property. In support of the contention, reliance is placed upon Bombay Dyeing?s case, in which unpaid wages came to be accumulated for about three years. Three years? arrears were transferred to Labour Welfare Fund and remained there unclaimed for three years. Observing that merely because there was no claim for the unpaid wages for three years, does not mean that it became abandoned property. In Bombay Dyeing, this Court held as under:- "27. It remains to deal with the contention of the respondents that the impugned legislation is, in substance, one in respect of abandoned property, and that, by its very nature, it cannot be held to violate the rights of any person either under Article 19(l)(f) or Article 31(2). That would be the correct position if the character of the legislation is what the respondents claim it to be, for it is only a person who has some interest in property that can complain that the impugned legislation invades that right whether it be under Article 19(l)(f) or Article 31(2), and if it is abandoned property, ex hypothesis there is no one who has any interest in it. But can the impugned Act be held to be legislation with respect to abandoned property? To answer this question, it is necessary to examine the basic principles underlying such a legislation, and ascertain whether those are the principles on which the Act is framed. The expression ?abandoned property? or to use the more familiar term ?bona vacantia? comprises properties of two different kinds, those which come in by escheat and those over which no one has a claim. In Halsbury?s Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 7, p. 536, para 1152, it is stated that ?the term bona vacantia is applied to things in which no one can claim a property and includes the residuary estate of persons dying intestate?. There is, however, this distinction between the two classes of property that while the State becomes the owner of the properties of a person who dies intestate as his ultimate heir, it merely takes possession of property which is abandoned. At common law, abandoned personal property could not be the subject of escheat. It could only be appropriated by the Sovereign as bona vacantia. Vide Holdsworth?s History of English Law, 2nd Edn., Vol. 7, p. 495-96. In Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Moore (333 US 541, 546) the principle behind the law was stated to be that ?the state may, more properly, be custodian and beneficiary of abandoned property than any other person?. Consistently with the principle stated above, a law relating to abandoned property enacts firstly provisions for the State conserving and safeguarding for the benefit of the true owners property in respect of which no claim is made for a specified and reasonable period, and secondly, for those properties vesting in the State absolutely when no claim is made with reference thereto by the true owners within a time limited.? 24. Contending that the initiation of the proceedings under the Rajasthan Escheats Act cannot stand unless the conditions for escheat are satisfied, reliance was placed upon in Peirce Leslie and Co. Ltd. (In CA No.1174 of 1965) and Miss Violet Ouchferlong Wapshare and Others (In CA No.1935 of 1966) v. Miss Violet Ouchterlong Wapshare and Others (In CA No.1174 of 1965) and Peirce Leslie and Co. Ltd. and Others (In CA No.1935 of 1966) AIR 1969 SC 843. 25. Observing that escheat is a doctrine which recognizes the State as a paramount sovereign in whom the property would vest upon a clear case of failure of heirs, in Kutchi Lal (2017) 16 SCC 418 , this Court held as under:- "20. …….Section 29 embodies the principle of escheat. The doctrine of escheat postulates that where an individual dies intestate and does not leave behind an heir who is qualified to succeed to the property, the property devolves on the Government. Though the property devolves on the Government in such an eventuality, yet the Government takes it subject to all its obligations and liabilities. The State in other words does not take the property (at SCC p. 113, para 12) ?as a rival or preferential heir of the deceased but as the lord paramount of the whole soil of the country?, as held in State of Punjab v. Balwant Singh 1992 Supp (3) SCC 108 . This principle from Halsbury?s Laws of England 4 th . Ed. Vol.17, Para 1439, was adopted by this Court while explaining the ambit of Section 29. Section 29 comes into operation only on there being a failure of heirs. Failure means a total absence of any heir to the person dying intestate. When a question of escheat arises, the onus rests heavily on the person who asserts the absence of an heir qualified to succeed to the estate of the individual who has died intestate to establish the case. The law does not readily accept such a consequence. …. ……. ?25. The principle that the law does not readily accept a claim to escheat and that the onus rests heavily on the person who asserts that an individual has died intestate, leaving no legal heir, qualified to succeed to the property, is founded on a sound rationale. Escheat is a doctrine which recognises the State as a paramount sovereign in whom property would vest only upon a clear and established case of a failure of heirs. This principle is based on the norm that in a society governed by the Rule of Law, the court will not presume that private titles are overridden in favour of the State, in the absence of a clear case being made out on the basis of a governing statutory provision. …….. The Collector is an officer of the State. He can exercise only such powers as the law specifically confers upon him to enter upon private disputes. In contrast, a civil court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon all matters involving civil disputes except where the jurisdiction of the court is taken away, either expressly or by necessary implication, by statute…...? [Underlining added]. 26. In Radha Krishna (1983) 3 SCC 118 , this Court held as under:- ?272. It is well settled that when a claim of escheat is put forward by the Government the onus lies heavily on the appellant to prove the absence of any heir of the respondent anywhere in the world. Normally, the court frowns on the estate being taken by escheat unless the essential conditions for escheat are fully and completely satisfied. Further, before the plea of escheat can be entertained, there must be a public notice given by the Government so that if there is any claimant anywhere in the country or for that matter in the world, he may come forward to contest the claim of the State. In the instant case, the States of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh merely satisfied themselves by appearing to oppose the claims of the plaintiffs-respondents. Even if they succeed in showing that the plaintiffs were not the nearest reversioners of the late Maharaja, it does not follow as a logical corollary that the failure of the plaintiffs? claim would lead to the irresistible inference that there is no other heir who could at any time come forward to claim the properties.? 27. In the light of the above principles, let us consider whether the State of Rajasthan was right in invocation of the Escheats Act, 1956 to take the properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh by escheat for want of heir or successor or as bona vacantia for want of a rightful owner. No doubt, the provisions of the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956 will be applicable only when the person dies intestate and/or is not succeeded by any of the person under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act or other succession laws. 28. There are two claims to the properties of the deceased Sh. Raja Sardar Singh:- By Khetri Trust said to have been created by virtue of Will executed by Sh. Raja Sardar Singh dated 30.10.1985; and By agnates of the deceased. Let me consider whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh were bona vacantia justifying the right of the Government to take the properties by escheat as a case of ?failure of heirs?. 29. Sh. Raja Sardar Singh died on 28.01.1987. The Khetri Trust was created on 31.01.1987. The Trust deed was executed on 14.04.1987 in which eminent persons like Bhaskar Mitter-Chairman Exide Ltd., Narottam Sehgal-ICS Former Home Secretary to Government of India, Dr. Romila Thapar, the eminent historian and Vikram Lal-Chairman Eicher Ltd. have held the post of Trustees of the Khetri Trust. In Testamentary Case No.26 of 1987, the High Court of Delhi has pointed out that over a period of time, Trustees changed and as on 08.07.2003, Lord Northbrook being son of Lady Olga Manning was made the Executor Trustee of the Will, apart from Maharaj Gaj Singh of Jodhpur. The executor of the Will viz. Parmeshwar Prasad had filed Testamentary Case No.26 of 1987 in March, 1987 under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of probate on the basis of the Will dated 30.10.1985 read with Codicil dated 07.11.1985. So far as the Khetri Trust is concerned, it has filed three interlocutory applications bearing Nos.5737-5739 of 2009. Trustees of Khetri Trust were impleaded as party pursuant to the order passed in interlocutory application No.5737 of 2009 – application for impleadment of the Trustees. 30. In Testamentary Case, the State of Rajasthan was also impleaded as a party because of bona vacantia i.e. for want of a rightful owner. The said interlocutory application bearing No.867 of 1995 for impleadment filed by the State of Rajasthan was dismissed by the Single Judge against which an appeal was preferred by the State of Rajasthan before the Division Bench in F.A.O. (OS) No.166 of 1996. By order of the Division Bench dated 08.11.1996, the State of Rajasthan was ordered to be impleaded as a party. But the State of Rajasthan was only permitted to address the arguments on the basis of the existing records. 31. Upon detailed consideration of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, by a detailed order dated 03.07.2012, the High Court of Delhi had dismissed the Testamentary Case No.26 of 1987 and held that ?the petitioners-executors of the Will were not able to establish execution of the Will dated 30.10.1985 and the Codicil dated 07.11.1985 in accordance with law and that the executors failed to dislodge the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will.? The relevant findings of the High Court are as under:- "101.1 That the petitioners have not been able to prove the Will Exhibit P-1 and the Codicil Exhibit P-3. The Will is not proved on account of the fact that the testimony of PW-1, P.N. Khanna and RW-8 is dramatically opposite. RW-8 has no reason to speak untruth, which will benefit him personally in any manner whatsoever. ……… 101.4 That the Will which is executed by the deceased/testator is incomplete and lacks material particulars. It talks about bequeathing immovable and movable properties to the Trust mentioned ?herein below? and no details of the properties are mentioned in the Will itself nor are the copies of the income-tax return or the wealth-tax return attached as the Will says that details of the properties are given therein. The petitioners have independently failed to prove the said documents.? Against the said judgment dismissing Testamentary Case, the Trustees had preferred an appeal before the High Court of Delhi and the same is pending in which, no stay was granted. 32. In the said Writ Petition being WP No.2713 of 1987, the Trust challenged three communications/orders dated 03.07.1987, 22.07.1987 and 03.08.1987 basing its claim upon the Will and that they had filed the probate case before the High Court of Delhi which was dismissed. Once the decision of the High Court of Delhi in the probate case has gone against the Trust, the Trust has no semblance of right, title and interest in the property, unless the Trust succeeds in the pending testamentary appeal, the Trust has no right to lay claim in the properties under escheat. The Trust having no right in the property, appears to have now taken up the cause of agnates, which the High Court, in my considered view, did not keep in view. 33. In the Writ Petition No.2713 of 1987, the Trustees of Khetri Trust having challenged three communication/orders initiating the proceedings under the Escheats Act, 1956 represented to the High Court that they had filed a probate case before the High Court of Delhi and requested the matter be adjourned. Upon consideration of the representation made by the Trustees of Khetri Trust that a probate case is pending, the High Court of Rajasthan by its order dated 19.11.2001 adjourned the Writ Petition sine-die awaiting the decision of the Delhi High Court. The Trust thus, chose to seek an adjournment in the Writ Petition challenging the initiation of the proceedings under the Act till the final decision of the probate case. Once the decision in the probate case had gone against them, unless they succeed in the appeal, Khetri Trust has no semblance of right to lay a claim over the properties. 34. The agnate such as Gaj Singh Alsisar-respondent No.8 and other agnates viz. Surender Singh, Hemender Singh, Nagender Singh and Yogendra Singh have filed their objections resisting grant of probate of the Will dated 30.10.1985. Subsequently, all of them have withdrawn their objections. Regarding the conduct of the agnates withdrawing their objections, observing that the reasons for such withdrawal is inexplicable, in the concluding para, the Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 23.11.2012 held as under:- ?……101.7 There were many objectors who had raised objection to the grant of probate/the letter of administration but actually each one of them withdrew. The reasons for withdrawal by them are inexplicable. No credible reason for the same has been given. This makes the Court to draw the inference that some forces were behind the scene which made them withdraw their objections leaving the field open for the petitioners but for the opposition of the State of Rajasthan.? As far as the objection of Gaj Singh Alsisar-respondent No.8, in the probate proceedings, he subsequently withdrew his claim/objection on 10.02.2009 suo moto. 35. So far as other objectors are concerned, in probate case the High Court of Delhi observed as under:- "16. After filing of the probate petition, a number of objections were filed in response to the citation published in the ?Statesman? on 17.04.1987, which had a wide circulation including in the State of Rajasthan, where most of the properties were situated. These objections were filed by the persons, namely, Rajender Singh, who died after filing of the objection and was represented by his legal heirs, Hemender Singh, Nagender Singh and Shobha Kanwar. The other objections were filed by Arjun Singh, Surender Singh, Narender Singh, Laxman Singh, Dwarka Prasad Parekh and Raghuvir Singh. Out of these objectors, except Raghuvir Singh, the rest of the objectors withdrew their objections by filing applications before the court on 10.02.2009. So far as Raghuvir Singh is concerned, he was stated to be incarcerated in connection with some criminal case registered against him in Jaipur Central Jail, who initially persisted with his objections and made allegations that the Khetri Trust and other entities had fraudulently fabricated documents and sold various properties of Raja?s Estate, a number of times, however, before the start of arguments on the merits of the petition, Raghuvir Singh also withdrew his objections.? As observed by the District Collector, there were number of objectors to the grant of probate in favour of Khetri Trust and all of them have gradually withdrawn their objections and the conduct of the agnates raises suspicion on their bonafide. When the agnates/other persons claiming right in the estate of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh have withdrawn their objections, naturally the inference is that they have accepted the claim/right of Khetri Trust, which claims through the Will. An inference has to be drawn against the persons that they have no right of claim in the properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh. The so called agnates or cognates cannot adopt double stand i.e. one claiming right in themselves and another allowing Khetri Trust to claim through the Will. It is also to be pointed out that the respondents No.8 and 9 and respondent No.6-Late Rajender Singh have not produced any document showing their status as agnates nor initiated any proceeding for declaration of their status. 36. Contention of the respondents is that the condition precedent for initiation of proceedings under the Escheats Act is ?failure of heirs? and there is no finding by the authorities as to ?failure of heirs? and therefore, the proceedings under the Escheats Act could not have been initiated. It was submitted that there was no enquiry conducted to satisfy the authorities as to ?failure of heirs? to succeed to the properties and there was no finding as to ?failure of heirs? and in the absence of finding as to ?failure of heirs?, the proceedings initiated under the Escheats Act was wholly jurisdiction and hence, the High Court rightly quashed the orders dated 03.07.1987, 22.07.1987 and 03.08.1987. 37. There is no merit in the contention of the respondents that there was no enquiry and satisfaction of the authorities as to ?failure of heirs? before initiating proceedings under the Escheats Act. As pointed out earlier, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khetri has sent a report dated 16.02.1987 to the District Collector, Jhunjhunu that Sh. Raja Sardar Singh expired in Mumbai on 28.01.1987 without any legal heir and that he has executed one Will by virtue of which Khetri trust was constituted. The SDO?s report also states about the absence of brother or sister or any child or other legal heirs. The report of the SDO reads as under:- "OFFICE OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER KHETRI No.51/P.A./87 Dated 16.2.1987To, District Collector, Jhunjhunu Sir, That as per the information received vide letter dated 11.2.1987 of Rajya Sabha, New Delhi, Raja Bahadur Shri Sardar Singh Khetri has expired in Mumbai on 28.1.1987 without any legal heir. He has executed only one will by virtue of this a Khetri Trust was constituted, the trust having four trustees and late Sardar Singh Ji has donated his movable and immoveable property to the Trust. Shri Sardar Singh has no brother or sister nor any child. He has divorced his wife. His father Amar Singh was adopted from Alsisar as his grandfather Ajit Singh had only one son Jai Singh, who died in minor age. Grandfather Shri Sardar Singh had two daughters one of them was married at Shahpura and other was married at Pratapgarh and both were expired, but there is a possibility of their children be alive. Sd/-Mangilal" 38. The State Government through Tehsildar, Jaipur issued a notice dated 27.02.1987 to general public at large stating that the estate of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh has been declared as escheat since he died without legal heirs. As seen from the communication of Naib Tehsildar dated 04.03.1987 and 07.03.1987 addressed to Sh. Nirbhay Singh, an enquiry was conducted by Nair Tehsildar as to lawaris property of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh. The letter dated 03.07.1987 from the Deputy Secretary to District Collector, Jhunjhunu was in reference to the letter dated 15.06.1987 sent by the District Collector, Jhunjhunu to the Deputy Secretary by which the District Collector, Jhunjhunu had apprised about the factual position of the investigation conducted by him in compliance of the procedure laid down under Section 4 of the Escheats Act. There is no merit in the contention of the respondents that the initiation of the proceedings under the Escheats Act was done without following the procedure laid down by the law and without enquiry and the finding as to ?failure of heirs?. The report of the SDO dated 16.02.1987 and the letter of the District Collector, Jhunjhunu dated 15.06.1987 addressed to the Government of Rajasthan shows that in compliance of the provisions of the Escheats Act, an enquiry was conducted and the authorities satisfied themselves as to ?failure of heirs? before initiating action under Escheats Act. The materials on record show that the proceedings under the provisions of Escheats Act has been initiated only after making proper enquiry about possible legal heirs of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh and on finding about the absence of legal heirs, the authorities satisfied themselves that the properties are bona vacantia. In my view, due procedure was followed by the concerned officials as per the Escheats Act following the provisions of Section 4 of the Escheats Act and only after ascertaining that there was ?failure of heirs?, the inventories of the properties were prepared and possession was taken over on all the vacant properties and mangers were appointed for the requisite purposes. 39. Deceased died way back in the year 1987. Till this date, the agnates have not instituted any suit or proceedings to establish their status nor obtained any declaration from the competent authorities. In the absence of any document declaring status of respondents No.4 to 8 as cognates/agnates of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh, State of Rajasthan cannot be faulted for initiating action under the Escheats Act, 1956 treating the properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh as lawaris for want of heir or successor or as bona vacantia. Moreover, it is not the case of the respondents No.4 to 8 that they represent all the agnates. As discussed earlier, no claimant came forward before the Tehsildar; only Nirbhay Singh who claimed as Manager of the Khetri Trust appeared before the Tehsildar. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, initiation of proceedings under the Escheats Act cannot be said to be erroneous warranting interference. 40. In Re: Compliance of the provisions of the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956:- The provisions of the Rajasthan Escheats Act, 1956 regulate the procedure for initiation of proceedings and making of enquiries in the matter of lawaris properties vesting in the State of Rajasthan qua ultima heres under Article 296 of the Constitution of India by escheat or as bona vacantia. The Act applies to the properties vesting in the State. Section 2(4) of the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956 defines ?property to which this Act applies? which reads as under:- Section 2 – Definitions – (4) ?Property to which this Act applies? means any property vesting in the State qua ultima heres under Article 296 of the Constitution of India by escheats or as bona vacantia. Section 3 of the 1956 Act shows that the general superintendence of the properties to which this Act applies vests in the Collector and the Board can also give directions to the Collector. These directions can be given for carrying out the provisions of the Act. 41. The Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act is a complete Code in itself. The preamble sets out the scope and ambit of the statute. The Act being a comprehensive legislation sets out the entire scheme relating to the constitutional power under Article 296 and provides for:- a) the making of enquiries; b) for custody and disposal; and c) properties vesting in the State under Article 296 of the Constitution. The scope of the Act is to:- a) determine the rightful owner and to restore the property in his/her favour; b) secure and safeguard the property pending under such enquiry; c) adjudicate upon the contesting claims prima facie, at the same time enabling the properties to avail remedies of Civil courts; and finally d) pass orders of vesting after giving opportunities to everybody and after holding a detailed enquiry. 42. When we consider the scheme of the Act, in particular, Section 4, it provides that when the Tehsildar receives information as to the existence within Tehsil of any property to which this Act applies, whether or not in the possession of any person, the Tehsildar shall – a. ascertain whether or not there is any person entitled to such property; b. prepare an inventory thereof showing the prescribed particulars; c. take over possession of it in the prescribed manner; and- d. make a report of the Collector. As per the proviso to Section 4 of the Act, if the property is in the ‘present possession of any person?, such possession shall not be disturbed. 43. As pointed out earlier, as against the order passed by the Collector (dated 02.02.2016), the Trust has preferred the appeal before the Board of Revenue and the same is pending, all the questions including the compliance of the provisions of the Escheat Act, 1956 are raised in the said appeal. We would not have ventured to go into the merits of the contention as to the compliance or otherwise of the provisions of the Escheats Act, 1956; since the High Court has quashed the communications/orders dated 03.07.1987, 22.07.1987 and 03.08.1987 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue, District Collector and the Tahsildar respectively holding that the provisions of the Escheats Act, 1956 has not been complied with, we are called upon to examine the merits of the contentions raised and examine whether there was proper compliance of the provisions of the Escheats Act, 1956 for initiation of the proceedings of the Act. If we do not examine the merits of the contention raised in this appeal, the findings of the High Court would stand and the appropriate forum will not be in a position to consider the matter on merits. I have to therefore necessarily proceed to examine the merits of the contention advanced by the parties as to the compliance or otherwise of the provisions of Escheats Act, 1956. 44. As discussed infra, the provisions of Section 4 of the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act have been substantially complied with. As pointed out earlier in para (4), a public notice was issued inviting the interested persons to present themselves before the Tehsildar and produce materials to prove their right. The Naib Tehsildar thereafter issued notice dated 07.03.1987 to Nirbhay Singh directing him to produce all documents with proof. From the materials, it is seen that the inquiry which was conducted by the Tehsildar is also in compliance of Section 4 of the Act. 45. As elaborated earlier in paras (4) to (6), a public notice was issued on 27.02.1987 by the Tehsildar, Jaipur calling upon persons who claim interest or right in the properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh to present himself before his office on 04.03.1987 with entire documents or otherwise, it would be presumed that the Khetri House and other properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh are lawaris and the same shall be taken to the custody of the State. Further, it can be seen from the letter dated 04.03.1987 that the Naib Tehsildar, Jaipur was appointed as Inquiry Officer of all properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh situated at Jaipur. The Tehsildar issued a notice to Nirbhay Singh/Manager of Hotel Khetri House on 07.03.1987 calling upon him to personally appear and produce the entire records of the properties under his occupation. He was also informed that if he does not appear and produce the documents, it would be presumed that the properties are lawaris. After referring to the letter of the Collector dated 03.07.1987, the Dy. Secretary to the State Government directed appellant No.3-Collector, Jhunjhunu to initiate proceedings under the Act as it was deemed that the deceased died intestate. The letter dated 03.07.1987 from Dy. Secretary to District Collector, Jhunjhunu to initiate proceedings under the Act was in reference to the letter dated 15.06.1987 sent by the District Collector, Jhunjhunu to the Dy. Secretary by which the District Collector had apprised about the factual position of the investigation conducted by it in view of the procedure laid down under Section 4 of the Act. By letter dated 22.07.1987, the Tehsildar Khetri was directed to initiate proceedings under the Rajasthan Escheats Act with respect to properties situated in Khetri and also to collect details of properties situated outside the State of Rajasthan. By attachment order dated 03.08.1987, immovable properties i.e. agricultural lands and orchards in village Hada Fatehpura was taken over. By cumulative reading of the contents of above various proceedings, it is clear that in accordance with provisions of the Act, the concerned officials first made inquiry to ascertain whether there was any legal heir of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh; issued notices and then prepared the inventories and after the spot inspection, attached the properties and taken over the possession of the vacant properties and submitted report to the Collector. The provisions of the Escheats Act, 1956, in our view, has been substantially complied with. 46. The learned Senior counsel for the respondents submitted that the Khetri Trust was in possession of the property of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh and the possession was taken over from the Trust by the Tehsildar in purported proceedings under Section 4 of the 1956 Act. It was further contended that even assuming that the Act was applicable, the possession was taken over from the Trust thereby contravening the proviso to Section 4(1) of the Act which provides that ?if such property is in the present possession of any person, such possession shall not be disturbed?. Contending that the Trust was in possession of the property of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh and that the State Government through Tehsildar had taken over the possession, the learned Senior counsel for the respondents inter-alia made the following submissions:- Immediately after the demise of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh on 28.01.1987, vide letter dated 14.02.1987, Parmeshwar Prasad, one of the Trustees addressed letter to SDO, Khetri informing about the death of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh and his bequest in favour of the Trust. Nirbhay Singh vide letter dated 05.03.1987 informed the Naib Tehsildar, Jaipur that the possession of the properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh lied with the Trust and that Nirbhay Singh is the Manager of the Trust and was in actual possession of movable and immovable properties in Khetri House where the Hotel was being run. The Spot Possession Report dated 31.07.1987 indicates that the Trust is in ?present possession? of the Khetri House i.e. there were five seals of Khetri Trust on the ground floor; three seals of Khetri Trust on the upper floor; seals of Khetri Trust were found affixed on both the gates and supervisors have been deputed for supervision thereof. It also states that keys of the kothis are with the office of Khetri Trust in Delhi. The learned Senior counsel submitted that in view of the above facts, it is beyond any doubt that the properties of the deceased were ?in present possession of the Trust and that such possession was not only disturbed but destroyed by the State taking over the possession of the properties?. 47. Of course, as per the Spot Inspection Report dated 31.07.1987, the property – Khetri House was found with locks with seal of Khetri Trust was affixed. As per the Spot Inspection Report nobody was found in physical possession of the property at the time of inspection. Upon consideration of these submissions inter-alia, the questions arising for determination are (i)Whether Khetri Trust was in ?present possession? of the property at the time of inspection and whether mere affixing of seal could lead to all inference that the Khetri Trust was in present possession?; (ii) Whether summoning of Nirbhay Singh was in his capacity as Manager of the Hotel Khetri or agent or representative of Khetri Trust?; and (iii) Whether the order passed by the District Collector under Section 6 is in due compliance of the provisions of the Act of Rajasthan Escheats Act, 1956? 48. As against the order passed by the District Collector on 02.02.2016, the appeal is preferred before the Board of Revenue and the same is pending while upholding the invocation of the provisions of Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956 in my considered view, the above contentions ought to be raised before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue shall consider the same on its own merits. 49. Challenging the initiation of proceedings under Escheats Act 1956, the Trustees have filed Writ Petition No.2713 of 1987 way back in the year 1987 and the same was pending for about three decades. In 2001, the writ petitioners themselves sought for an adjournment on the ground of pendency of probate case before the Delhi High Court and the High Court also adjourned the writ petition sine-die. Thereafter, the writ petition remained pending for quite some time. As discussed earlier, three communications/orders dated 03.07.1987, 22.07.1987 and 03.08.1987 and subsequently, number of other orders came to be passed for taking possession of the properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh. The Delhi High Court dismissed the probate petition filed by the Khetri Trust by the judgment dated 03.07.2012 and the appeal filed by the Trust against the said judgment has been admitted by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and the same is pending. Under Section 6 of the Escheats Act, 1956, the Collector passed the order on 02.02.2016 dismissing the objections of the Trust on the basis of the order passed by the Delhi High Court in probate proceedings. The claim of agnates was also rejected by the District Collector on the ground that they had withdrawn their objections in the probate proceedings and are thus estopped from making any further claim. 50. Challenging the order passed by the District Collector, appeal has been preferred before the Board of Revenue and the same is pending. The Board of Revenue stayed the order of the District Collector by the order dated 12.04.2016. It was thereafter, the High Court had taken up the Writ Petition No.2713 of 1987 and passed the impugned order quashing the three communication/orders. When the appeals were pending before the Delhi High Court and before the Board of Revenue involving disputed questions, the High Court, in my view, ought to have directed the parties to avail efficacious alternative remedy. The High Court, in my view, ignoring the subsequent events that the respondents-agnates have withdrawn their objections in the probate petition and dismissal of the probate petition and the appeals pending before the Delhi High Court and appeal pending before the Board of Revenue erred in quashing the three communications/orders and directing the State to hand over the possession of the properties to the respondents. 51. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court having regard to the facts of the case has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions; one of which is an effective and efficacious remedy available. When efficacious alternative remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise the jurisdiction. However, alternative remedy will not be a bar at least in three instances:- (i) where writ petition is filed for enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is a violation of the fundamental right or principles of natural justice; and (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged; [vide Harbanslal Sahnia and Another v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Others (2003) 2 SCC 107 ]. 52. Notwithstanding the availability of alternative remedy, having regard to the facts of the case, the High Court has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But in the present case, while considering correctness of the communications/orders issued way back in 1987, the High Court should have taken into consideration the subsequent events viz., the judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi in Testamentary Case and the order passed by the District Collector under Section 6 of the Act and the pendency of appeals before the High Court and Board of Revenue. Challenge to the initiation of the proceedings under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956 is already a subject matter of appeal before the Board of Revenue. Based on the Will, whether the Trust has a right to claim the properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh is also a subject matter of appeal before the Delhi High Court. While so, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court ought not to have gone into the correctness of three notices issued on 03.07.1987, 22.07.1987 and 03.08.1987 which themselves culminated into various final orders. The impugned order takes away the very foundation of the order passed by the District Collector which is subject matter of the appeal pending before the Board of Revenue. There are serious disputed questions of facts especially whether there was contravention of Proviso to Section 4 and in such view of the matter, the High Court ought not to have gone into the correctness of three communications/orders dated 03.07.1987, 22.07.1987 and 03.08.1987. The High Court, in my considered view, ought to have directed the parties to work out the remedy before the competent court/authority. 53. I summarise my conclusion as under:- (i) Since the Testamentary Case No.26 of 1987 then pending before the High Court of Delhi for grant of probate of the Will, has been dismissed and the testamentary appeal is pending before the High Court, there is no rightful owner as per the Will. (ii) Having withdrawn their objections in the probate proceedings, respondent Nos.5 to 9 are estopped from making any claim in the properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh till they establish their right in a court of law. (iii) The provisions of the Escheats Act, 1956 was initiated only after enquiring about the legal heirs of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh and before initiation of proceedings under the Escheats Act, the authorities satisfied itself as to ?failure of heirs? of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh and that the properties are bona vacantia. (iv) The persons claiming as agnates have not established their status in a court of law recognising them as rightful owners. (v) There was issuance of public notice and also to private individuals, before the State of Rajasthan took over the estate of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh by escheat. The provisions of the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956 have been substantially complied with. (vi) The State of Rajasthan was right in treating the property as ‘bona vacantia? and right in initiating the proceedings under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956. (vii) Challenge to the initiation of the proceedings under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956 is already a subject matter of appeal before the Board of Revenue. Based on the Will, whether the Trust has a right to claim the properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh is also a subject matter of appeal before the Delhi High Court. While so, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court ought not to have gone into the correctness of three notices issued on 03.07.1987, 22.07.1987 and 03.08.1987 which themselves culminated into various final orders. (viii) There are serious disputed questions of facts especially whether there was contravention of Proviso to Section 4 and in such view of the matter, the High Court ought not to have gone into the correctness of three communications/orders dated 03.07.1987, 22.07.1987 and 03.08.1987.

Decision:
1[ds]No doubt, the provisions of the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956 will be applicable only when the person dies intestate and/or is not succeeded by any of the person under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act or other succession laws.There are two claims to the properties of the deceased Sh. Raja SardarKhetri Trust said to have been created by virtue of Will executed by Sh. Raja Sardar Singh dated 30.10.1985; andIn the said Writ Petition being WP No.2713 of 1987, the Trust challenged three communications/orders dated 03.07.1987, 22.07.1987 and 03.08.1987 basing its claim upon the Will and that they had filed the probate case before the High Court of Delhi which was dismissed. Once the decision of the High Court of Delhi in the probate case has gone against the Trust, the Trust has no semblance of right, title and interest in the property, unless the Trust succeeds in the pending testamentary appeal, the Trust has no right to lay claim in the properties under escheat. The Trust having no right in the property, appears to have now taken up the cause of agnates, which the High Court, in my considered view, did not keep in view.In the Writ Petition No.2713 of 1987, the Trustees of Khetri Trust having challenged three communication/orders initiating the proceedings under the Escheats Act, 1956 represented to the High Court that they had filed a probate case before the High Court of Delhi and requested the matter be adjourned. Upon consideration of the representation made by the Trustees of Khetri Trust that a probate case is pending, the High Court of Rajasthan by its order dated 19.11.2001 adjourned the Writ Petition sine-die awaiting the decision of the Delhi High Court. The Trust thus, chose to seek an adjournment in the Writ Petition challenging the initiation of the proceedings under the Act till the final decision of the probate case. Once the decision in the probate case had gone against them, unless they succeed in the appeal, Khetri Trust has no semblance of right to lay a claim over theobserved by thethere were number of objectors to thete in favour of Khetri Trust and all of them have gradually withdrawn their objections and the conduct of the agnates raises suspicion on their bonafide. When the agnates/other persons claiming right in the estate of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh have withdrawn their objections, naturally the inference is that they have accepted the claim/right of Khetri Trust, which claims through the Will. An inference has to be drawn against the persons that they have no right of claim in the properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh. The so called agnates or cognates cannot adopt double stand i.e. one claiming right in themselves and another allowing Khetri Trust to claim through the Will. It is also to be pointed out that the respondents No.8 and 9 and respondent No.6-Late Rajender Singh have not produced any document showing their status as agnates nor initiated any proceeding for declaration of their status.There is no merit in the contention of the respondents that there was no enquiry and satisfaction of the authorities as to ?failure of heirs? before initiating proceedings under the Escheats Act. As pointed out earlier, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khetri has sent a report dated 16.02.1987 to thenu that Sh. Raja Sardar Singh expired in Mumbai on 28.01.1987 without any legal heir and that he has executed one Will by virtue of which Khetri trust was constituted. The SDO?s report also states about the absence of brother or sister or any child or other legal heirs. The report of the SDO reads asOF THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICERct Collector,as per the information received vide letter dated 11.2.1987 of Rajya Sabha, New Delhi, Raja Bahadur Shri Sardar Singh Khetri has expired in Mumbai on 28.1.1987 without any legal heir. He has executed only one will by virtue of this a Khetri Trust was constituted, the trust having four trustees and late Sardar Singh Ji has donated his movable and immoveable property to theSardar Singh has no brother or sister nor any child. He has divorced his wife. His father Amar Singh was adopted from Alsisar as his grandfather Ajit Singh had only one son Jai Singh, who died in minor age. Grandfather Shri Sardar Singh had two daughters one of them was married at Shahpura and other was married at Pratapgarh and both were expired, but there is a possibility of their children be alive.The State Government through Tehsildar, Jaipur issued a notice dated 27.02.1987 to general public at large stating that the estate of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh has been declared as escheat since he died without legal heirs. As seen from the communication of Naib Tehsildar dated 04.03.1987 and 07.03.1987 addressed to Sh. Nirbhay Singh, an enquiry was conducted by Nair Tehsildar as to lawaris property of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh. The letter dated 03.07.1987 from the Deputy Secretary tonu was in reference to the letter dated 15.06.1987 sent by theCollector, Jhunjhunu tothe Deputy Secretary by which thenu had apprised about the factual position of the investigation conducted by him in compliance of the procedure laid down under Section 4 of the Escheats Act. There is no merit in the contention of the respondents that the initiation of the proceedings under the Escheats Act was done without following the procedure laid down by the law and without enquiry and the finding as to ?failure of heirs?. The report of the SDO dated 16.02.1987 and the letter of thenu dated 15.06.1987 addressed to thean shows that in compliance of the provisions of the Escheats Act, an enquiry was conducted and the authorities satisfied themselves as to ?failure of heirs? before initiating action under Escheats Act. The materials on record show that the proceedings under the provisions of Escheats Act has been initiated only after making proper enquiry about possible legal heirs of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh and on finding about the absence of legal heirs, the authorities satisfied themselves that the properties are bona vacantia. In my view, due procedure was followed by the concerned officials as per the Escheats Act following the provisions of Section 4 of the Escheats Act and only after ascertaining that there was ?failure of heirs?, the inventories of the properties were prepared and possession was taken over on all the vacant properties and mangers were appointed for the requisite purposes.Deceased died way back in the year 1987. Till this date, the agnates have not instituted any suit or proceedings to establish their status nor obtained any declaration from the competent authorities. In the absence of any document declaring status of respondents No.4 to 8 as cognates/agnates of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh, State of Rajasthan cannot be faulted for initiating action under the Escheats Act, 1956 treating the properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh as lawaris forir or successor or as bona vacantia. Moreover, it is not the case of the respondents No.4 to 8 that they represent all the agnates. As discussed earlier, no claimant came forward before the Tehsildar; only Nirbhay Singh who claimed as Manager of the Khetri Trust appeared before the Tehsildar. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, initiation of proceedings under the Escheats Act cannot be said to be erroneous warranting interference.As pointed out earlier, as against the order passed by the Collector (dated 02.02.2016), the Trust has preferred the appeal before the Board of Revenue and the same is pending, all the questions including the compliance of the provisions of the Escheat Act, 1956 are raised in the said appeal. We would not have ventured to go into the merits of the contention as to the compliance or otherwise of the provisions of the Escheats Act, 1956; since the High Court has quashed the communications/orders dated 03.07.1987, 22.07.1987 and 03.08.1987 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue, District Collector and the Tahsildar respectively holding that the provisions of the Escheats Act, 1956 has not been complied with, we are called upon to examine the merits of the contentions raised and examine whether there was proper compliance of the provisions of the Escheats Act, 1956 for initiation of the proceedings of the Act. If we do not examine the merits of the contention raised in this appeal, the findings of the High Court would stand and the appropriate forum will not be in a position to consider the matter on merits. I have to therefore necessarily proceed to examine the merits of the contention advanced by the parties as to the compliance or otherwise of the provisions of Escheats Act, 1956.As discussed infra, the provisions of Section 4 of the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act have been substantially complied with. As pointed out earlier in para (4), a public notice was issued inviting the interested persons to present themselves before the Tehsildar and produce materials to prove their right. The Naib Tehsildar thereafter issued notice dated 07.03.1987 to Nirbhay Singh directing him to produce all documents with proof. From the materials, it is seen that the inquiry which was conducted by the Tehsildar is also in compliance of Section 4 of the Act.As elaborated earlier in paras (4) to (6), a public notice was issued on 27.02.1987 by the Tehsildar, Jaipur calling upon persons who claim interest or right in the properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh to present himself before his office on 04.03.1987 with entire documents or otherwise, it would be presumed that the Khetri House and other properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh are lawaris and the same shall be taken to the custody of the State. Further, it can be seen from the letter dated 04.03.1987 that the Naib Tehsildar, Jaipur was appointed as Inquiry Officer of all properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh situated at Jaipur. The Tehsildar issued a notice to Nirbhay Singh/Manager of Hotel Khetri House on 07.03.1987 calling upon him to personally appear and produce the entire records of the properties under his occupation. He was also informed that if he does not appear and produce the documents, it would be presumed that the properties are lawaris. After referring to the letter of the Collector dated 03.07.1987, the Dy. Secretary to the State Government directed appellantJhunjhunu to initiate proceedings under the Actas it was deemed that the deceased died intestate. The letter dated 03.07.1987 from Dy. Secretary toCollector, Jhunjhunu toinitiate proceedings under the Actwas in reference to the letter dated 15.06.1987 sent by theCollector, Jhunjhunu tothe Dy. Secretary by which the District Collector had apprised about the factual position of the investigation conducted by it in view of the procedure laid down under Section 4 of the Act. By letter dated 22.07.1987, the Tehsildar Khetri was directed to initiate proceedings under the Rajasthan Escheats Act with respect to properties situated in Khetri and also to collect details of properties situated outside the State of Rajasthan. By attachment order dated 03.08.1987, immovable properties i.e. agricultural lands and orchards in village Hada Fatehpura was taken over. By cumulative reading of the contents of above various proceedings, it is clear that in accordance with provisions of the Act, the concerned officials first made inquiry to ascertain whether there was any legal heir of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh; issued notices and then prepared the inventories and after the spot inspection, attached the properties and taken over the possession of the vacant properties and submitted report to the Collector. The provisions of the Escheats Act, 1956, in our view, has been substantially complied with.When we consider the scheme of the Act, in particular, Section 4, it provides that when the Tehsildar receives information as to the existence within Tehsil of any property to which this Act applies, whether or not in the possession of any person, the Tehsildar shallascertain whether or not there is any person entitled to suchprepare an inventory thereof showing the prescribedtake over possession of it in the prescribed manner;make a report of theper the proviso to Section 4 of the Act, if the property is in the ‘present possession of any person?, such possession shall not be disturbed.Of course, as per the Spot Inspection Report dated 31.07.1987, the property – Khetri House was found with locks with seal of Khetri Trust was affixed. As per the Spot Inspection Report nobody was found in physical possession of the property at the time of inspection.As against the order passed by the District Collector on 02.02.2016, the appeal is preferred before the Board of Revenue and the same is pending while upholding the invocation of the provisions of Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956 in my considered view, the above contentions ought to be raised before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue shall consider the same on its own merits.Challenging the initiation of proceedings under Escheats Act 1956, the Trustees have filed Writ Petition No.2713 of 1987 way back in the year 1987 and the same was pending for about three decades. In 2001, the writ petitioners themselves sought for an adjournment on the ground of pendency of probate case before the Delhi High Court and the High Court also adjourned the writ petition sine-die. Thereafter, the writ petition remained pending for quite some time. As discussed earlier, three communications/orders dated 03.07.1987, 22.07.1987 and 03.08.1987 and subsequently, number of other orders came to be passed for taking possession of the properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh. The Delhi High Court dismissed the probate petition filed by the Khetri Trust by the judgment dated 03.07.2012 and the appeal filed by the Trust against the said judgment has been admitted by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and the same is pending. Under Section 6 of the Escheats Act, 1956, the Collector passed the order on 02.02.2016 dismissing the objections of the Trust on the basis of the order passed by the Delhi High Court in probate proceedings. The claim of agnates was also rejected by the District Collector on the ground that they had withdrawn their objections in the probate proceedings and are thus estopped from making any further claim.Challenging the order passed by theal has been preferred before the Board of Revenue and the same is pending. The Board of Revenue stayed the order of the District Collector by the order dated 12.04.2016. It was thereafter, the High Court had taken up the Writ Petition No.2713 of 1987 and passed the impugned order quashing the three communication/orders. When the appeals were pending before the Delhi High Court and before the Board of Revenue involving disputed questions, the High Court, in my view, ought to have directed the parties to avail efficacious alternative remedy. The High Court, in my view, ignoring the subsequent events that the respondents-agnates have withdrawn their objections in the probate petition and dismissal of the probate petition and the appeals pending before the Delhi High Court and appeal pending before the Board of Revenue erred in quashing the three communications/orders and directing the State to hand over the possession of the properties to the respondents.Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court having regard to the facts of the case has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions; one of which is an effective and efficacious remedy available. When efficacious alternative remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise the jurisdiction. However, alternative remedy will not be a bar at least in threewhere writ petition is filed forof any of the) where there is a violation of the fundamental right or principles of natural justice;where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged; [vide Harbanslal Sahnia and Another v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Others (2003) 2 SCC 107 ].Notwithstanding the availability of alternative remedy, having regard to the facts of the case, the High Court has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But in the present case, while considering correctness of the communications/orders issued way back in 1987, the High Court should have taken into consideration the subsequent events viz., the judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi in Testamentary Case and the order passed by the District Collector under Section 6 of the Act and the pendency of appeals before the High Court and Board of Revenue. Challenge to the initiation of the proceedings under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956 is already a subject matter of appeal before the Board of Revenue. Based on the Will, whether the Trust has a right to claim the properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh is also a subject matter of appeal before the Delhi High Court. While so, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court ought not to have gone into the correctness of three notices issued on 03.07.1987, 22.07.1987 and 03.08.1987 which themselves culminated into various final orders. The impugned order takes away the very foundation of the order passed by the District Collector which is subject matter of the appeal pending before the Board of Revenue. There are serious disputed questions of facts especially whether there was contravention of Proviso to Section 4 and in such view of the matter, the High Court ought not to have gone into the correctness of three communications/orders dated 03.07.1987, 22.07.1987 and 03.08.1987. The High Court, in my considered view, ought to have directed the parties to work out the remedy before the competent court/authority.I summarise my conclusion asSince the Testamentary Case No.26 of 1987 then pending before the High Court of Delhi forte of the Will, has been dismissed and the testamentary appeal is pending before the High Court, there is no rightful owner as per theHaving withdrawn their objections in the probate proceedings, respondent Nos.5 to 9 are estopped from making any claim in the properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh till they establish their right in a court ofThe provisions of the Escheats Act, 1956 was initiated only after enquiring about the legal heirs of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh and before initiation of proceedings under the Escheats Act, the authorities satisfied itself as to ?failure of heirs? of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh and that the properties are bonaThe persons claiming as agnates have not established their status in a court of law recognising them as rightfulThere was issuance of public notice and also to private individuals, before the State of Rajasthan took over the estate of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh by escheat. The provisions of the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956 have been substantially compliedThe State of Rajasthan was right in treating the property as ‘bona vacantia? and right in initiating the proceedings under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act,Challenge to the initiation of the proceedings under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956 is already a subject matter of appeal before the Board of Revenue. Based on the Will, whether the Trust has a right to claim the properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh is also a subject matter of appeal before the Delhi High Court. While so, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court ought not to have gone into the correctness of three notices issued on 03.07.1987, 22.07.1987 and 03.08.1987 which themselves culminated into various finalThere are serious disputed questions of facts especially whether there was contravention of Proviso to Section 4 and in such view of the matter, the High Court ought not to have gone into the correctness of three communications/orders dated 03.07.1987, 22.07.1987 and 03.08.1987.