- (1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the order of the Addl. Collector, Udaipur dated 18-91969 passed in the matter of the escheat occasioned by the demise of one Deva Rawal, Sthandhari of Asan Muafi, Tehsil Amet. The facts and circumstances as well as the impugned order being the same, both these appeals, are being disposed of by one and the same order.
(2.) THE facts are that the Tehsildar, Amet initiated proceedings under the Escheats Act and reported to the Collector attaching the entire property of the deceased Deva Rawal. THE Collector found that the proceedings initiated by the Tehsildar were not complete in all respects under the law and the case was remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajsamand for inquiry and report on 23 6-1968 THE S. D. O. reported back. He found that Deva Rawal had taken in adoption Mohan Nath as his successor as the Sthandhari of Asan and a registered will was executed on 20-12-1963 in Mohan Rawal's favour. Mohan Rawal was a minor at that time and his mother Dakhi Bai, as his natural guardian, engaged one Ogadmal for the management of the property Since Mohan Rawal had been adopted as the 'chela' the deceased Deva Rawal could not be held having died without an heir. He also recommended for the estate being managed by the Court of wards since Deva Rawal had demised leaving behind debts amounting to Rs. 3400/- and Mohan Rawal was a minor. Objections were invited by the Additional Collector and the same were filed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, appellant and Mohan Rawal; Mangilal Bhoor Rawal and Narain Rawal, all respondents No. 1 to 4, in appeal No. 18/1969. All their objections have been briefly stated in the impugned order. THE Additional Collector after hearing the objections, held that no question of escheat was involved as deceased Deva Rawal had appointed Mohan Rawal respon-dent-1. as his Chela during his life time by a registered deed and the properties attached by the Tehsildar were released and ordered to be handed over to Mohan Rawal. Referring to the objection taken on behalf of the Devasthan Department that Mohan Rawal could not be treated as the 'ayes' or 'sthandhari' without the sanction of the State Government, he held that this had no connection-what-so-ever with the proceedings under the Escheats Act and the Department should initiate separate proceedings for the appointment of the 'ayes'. But to ensure proper 'sewa-Pooja' of the Asan, it was ordered that the property should remain in the custody of the natural guardian of the minor Mohan Rawal i. e. his mother who should prefer a bond and proper surety to the effect that in the event of Mohan Rawal being not accepted and appointed as the 'ayes' by the State Government, the properties released from attachment would be redelivered to the State Government. Aggrieved by this order the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department has come in appeal before us. We have heard the parties. It has been averred on behalf of the appellant that the maufi of Asan was a 'shatdarshan' maufi and the State Govt. 's sanction was necessary for the appointment of 'ayes'. The maufi had been resumed in 1963 whereas Deva Rawal had died in 1969. The 'ayes' was a mere 'sarbarakas' and on his demise, a successor was to be appointed by the State Government. He claimed the right of the Devasthan Department to manage the Seva-Pooja and upkeep of the 'asan' till the various claimants do not obtain judicial decision by a competent Civil Court on succession to the Sarbarakari. Attention was drawn towards Section 16 of the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions & Proceedings (Validation) Act, and Rule 8 of the Mewari Maufi Rules, which did not stand repealed by the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act. Thus sanction of the Government was necessary for succession to Shatdarshan 'asans' or 'stans'. The order of the Addl. Collector was erroneous and without jurisdiction with regard to the management and upkeep of the Asan being handed over to the natural guardian of Mohan Rnwal, minor. Besides, the property had been wrongly alienated to Mangilal, respondent No 2, which the Sarbarakar was not entitled to do. A proclamation was mandatory u/s 5 5) of the Escheat Act and this had not been done. The impugned order, therefore, deserved to be set aside. Exparte proceedings having been ordered against respondents 2, 3 & 4, the counsel for the respondent 1 - Mohan Rawal has contended that the maufi stood resumed on 1-7-1963 being the date of resumption of the last maufi in the State whereas Deva Rawal had died on 10-6-1969. Sec. 16 of the Jagir Validation Act determined the right and title of the estateholder. Sec. 38 of the Jagir Resumption Act appertained to the determination of a right to Jagir. The instant proceedings were under the Escheat Act. The finding of the lower court was that the matter did not fall with in the purview of the Escheat Act and the properties of the deceased were restored to the natural guardian of the minor Chela of the deceased. If Mohan Rawal does not manage well, the Devasthan Department could very well step in under the Public Trusts Act. Alienation of property to Mangilal respondent by the Sarbarakar could be questioned only in a competent Civil Court. The Govt. Advocate Shri B. K. Pareek averred that the Collector ought to have managed the estate till the various parties interested in the matter of deceased Deva Rawal's estate and succession did not seek a final decision from the competent civil courts. Collector was within his jurisdiction under Sec. 16 of the Jagir Validation Act to order management and should also have referred the matter to the Govt. for grant of an annuity in lieu of the resumed maufi for the Seva-Pooja, upkeep and management of the 'asan'. We have carefully given thought to all these averments. The proceedings were initiated under the Escheat Act. A proclamation u/s 5 of the said Act though mandatory could have been resorted to only after the Collector was satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out under the said Act. Since the finding was that it was not a matter falling under the Escheat Act, no further proceedings were undertaken and thus a proclamation under Sec. 5 was unnecessary and unwarranted. The maufi having been admittedly resumed on 1-7-1963 and Deva Rawal having demised later on 10-6-1969, the question of succession to the maufi did arise. The succession to Deva Rawal's estate was clearly, therefore, a civil matter. The question of grant of annuity for the Seva-Pooja, upkeep and management of the Asan in lieu of the resumed maufi is no doubt open but does not fall within the purview of the instant proceedings under the Escheat Act. The Collector of course had taken sufficient precaution to secure a bond with surety from the natural guardian of the minor Mohan Rawal to secure proper Seva-Pooja, upkeep and management till the matter of succession was finally decided by competent court. The factum of Mohan Rawal's adoption has also remained unassailed before us. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any valid ground for intervention in the operation of the impugned order of the Addl. Collector dated 18-9-1969. The appeal No. 18/1969, is therefore, rejected and the other cross appeal by Mohan Rawal-appeal No. 8/1970 would also, therefore, stand disposed of by this very order. .;