- (1.) THIS is an appeal, under Section 7 of the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act against order dated 7-6 67 by the Additional Collector, Kota The facts are that one Bhoorsingh died without issue. It was stated that he bad by a registered will dated 12-1-69 left 20 bighas of land and certain other specified properties to Mohansingh and Jagdish Singh (respondents No 3 & 4) sons of his brother-in-law, and the rest of the land and properties to Khuman Singh (respondent No. 2) son of his sister-in-law (wife's sister ). Bhairon Singh, appellant, who is the grandson of the brother of the deceased's father claimed that he had been adopted by the deceased much earlier and that he had also written a document on 21-2-60 (the date of his death) giving him some properties on the date of his death. It appears that respondents No. 3 & 4 (Mohansingh and Jagdish Singh) came into possession of the properties specifically left to them. The dispute remained between the appellant and respondent No. 2. The latter produced the will and claimed mutation of the land. There was then some sort of an agreement and by mutations dated 4-12-60, sanctioned by the Panchayat, Khasra No. 204 was shown in the name of Bharon Singh appellant and Khasra Nos. 160 and 171 in the name of Khumansingh respondent No. 2.
(2.) A complaint dated 9-1061 was submitted to the Collector by two persons Ganpatsingh and Kishan Singh, that Bhoorsingh deceased had died without heirs and the properties should be taken over by the State. Enquiries were, thereupon, conducted through the Tehsil and the Addl. Collector passed the impugned order dated 7-6 67, deciding that the properties were not subject to escheat and should vest in the respondents according to the will dated 12-1-59, depriving the appellant of any share. The order said that the appellant could, if he desired, get his claim decided by a Civil Court. Learned counsel for the appellant invited attention to the statements made by residents of the village on 27-5-62 before the Land Record Inspector, the two mutations, and the Inspector's reports dated 7-6 62 and 30-6,62, all of which showed that the properties had been amicably settled amongst the appellant and the three respondents. He invited attention to the statement of Jeewan dated 10-11-62, before the Tehsildar, in which he said that Bhairon Singh (the appellant) had been adopted by the deceased earlier and that the funeral and after-death ceremonies of the deceased had been performed by him and that the deceased had, before his death allotted some land to the three respondents, and left the rest to the appellant. He also invited attention to the statement of Bhanwarsingh of the same date before the Tehsildar, in which he confirmed the statement of Jeewan and added that the whole village had collected when Bhoorsingh allotted lands and properties to the appellant and the respondents. He further argued that the properties were not at all escheat or bona vacantia, and having already been properly divided and settled by the deceased, the Collector had no jurisdiction under the Escheats Regulation Act to decide the manner in which the properties would be held, and to deprive the appellant of what he had received. The Collector's duty under Sec. 6 (5) of the Act is to obtain information regarding the property form public records any by personal enquiries "being in ail cases careful not to infringe any private rights or to occasion unnecessary trouble or vexation to individuals. " Under Section 6 (7) he may, if a complicated question of law is involved, ask the claimants to go to a Civil Court and meanwhile keep the proceedings before him pending. If after enquiry he is satisfied that the property is not of the nature to which the Act applies he should close the proceedings before him under Section 6 (9) (a) and allow the properties to remain in the possession of the person in whose possession they might be, or, if possession had been taken under Section 4, to restore the possession to the person from whom it was taken. If on the other hand, he is of the opinion that the deceased died heirless and any claims preferred were not maintainable the Collector should apply to the District Judge for a vesting order under Sec. 6 (9) (b ). . Learned counsel invited attention to the rulings in 1957 RRD 290 (Ramnath vs. Surajmal), 1960 RRD 48 (Bhera vs. State) 1961 RRD 153 (Bhonra vs. State) and 1963 RRD 179 (Bhanwarlal vs. State) to elucidate these duties of the Collector under Sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Escheats Regulations Act. Learned counsel for the respondents said that the so called 'god-nama' (adoption deed) in favour of the appellant had been correctly disbelieved by the Addl. Collector, as the original had not even been produced by the appellant. The copy itself, as observed in the Addl. Collector's order did not show that it was in the nature of an adoption deed. It was written on plain-paper and admittedly signed only shortly before death on the date of death (21-2-1960 ). The actual adoption is claimed to have taken place many years earlier, but the absence of any mention thereof, or even of the appellant's name in the will dated 12-1-1959 belies the adoption. The agreement on the basis of which the mutations are reported to have been sanctioned in the name of the appellant and respondent No. 2 was not produced before the Addl. Collector. The Addl. Collector, therefore, learned counsel said, acted properly in passing his order on the basis of the registered will dated 12-1-1959. We have considered the matter. In the circumstances of the case as brought out before him, the Collector rightly came to the conclusion that the property was not liable to escheat. Having come to that conclusion, however, the Collector could only act under clause (a) of sub-section (9) of Section 6 of the Escheats Regulations Act, that is to say, "order the proceedings to be closed and the property to be allowed to remain with the person in whose possession it might then be". If the property was in the possession of more than one person, it is implied that it should be left in their possession. It was not for the Collector to sit in judgment over their mutual dispute, if any. We, therefore, partially accept the appeal and order that the properties being not of the nature to which the Rajasthan Escheats Regulations Act applies,shall be allowed to remain in the possession of persons in whose possession they were when the proceedings under the Act started. If there is any dispute amongst such persons, they would of course, be free to seek appropriate remedy under other laws. .;