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

claim of agnates was also rejected by the District Collector on the ground that they had withdrawn their objections in the probate proceedings and are thus estopped from making any further claim. 50.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 The High Court, in my view, ignoring the subsequent events that the respondents-agnates have withdrawn their objections in the probate petition and dismissal of the probate petition and the appeals pending before the Delhi High Court and appeal pending before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 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
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.