MATHUR, J. - (1.) BY this petition for writ a challenge is given to the order dated 29. 5. 1999 passed by the District Judge, Udaipur making a proclamation of vesting of property with State under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1956 ). The petitioner has also given challenge to the proceedings initiated under the proclamation dated 12. 7. 1991 made by the Additional Collector, Udaipur under Section 6 of the Act of 1956.
(2.) THE facts in brief are that one late Shri Kaliya who was having Khatedari of agricultural land in his name in Khasra No. 12 measuring 25 Bighas 17 Biswas. THE land aforesaid was alleged to be in possession and also under active cultivation of the petitioner after death of Shri Kaliya. THE Additional Collector, Udaipur registered a case under the Act of 1956 and issued a proclamation as envisaged under sub-section (1) (b) of Section 6 of the Act of 1956. According to the petitioners, the proclamation so made was not in consonance to the provisions under Section 6 of the Act of 1956 and was also issued without giving appropriate notice to the person interested. It is also contended by the petitioners that no vide publicity was given to the proclamation and the particulars of the land sought to be declared escheat were also not mentioned in the proclamation. Substantially, it is contended that the proclamation made under Section 6 (1) (b) was not in accordance with law, therefore, the entire proceedings taken in pursuant thereto deserves to be quashed. A reply to the writ petition is filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the proceedings took place in accordance with law and an inquiry was made by the authority competent as required under Section 6 of the Act of 1956. The Collector took action only after getting himself satisfied that the land in question became escheat property after death of Shri Kaliya. Heard counsel for the parties. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the proclamation under Section 6 must contain the particulars of the property which is required to be declared escheat. He has further contended that such proclamation should be given vide publicity as prescribed under sub-sec. 2 of Section 6 of the Act of 1956. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the proclamation made in Clause (b) of sub-sec. (1) of section 6 of the act of 1956 itself is void being not specifying the particulars of the property and also not calling upon all the persons having interest in the property. I have perused and examined the proclamation dated 12. 7. 1991. The proclamation nowhere mentions particulars of the property required to be declared as escheat property. The proclamation simply mentions that the list of property can be seen in the office during office hours. The requirements of Section 6 of the Act of 1956 is that the Collector shall issue a proclamation specifying the prescribed particulars of the property concerned. The relevant portion of Section 6 of the Act of 1956 is extracted below: " 6. Inquiry by Collector.- (1) Upon receipt of a report under Section 4, the Collector shall immediately- (a) make such orders as he thinks proper respecting the possession, maintenance, management, safe custody and taking care of each item of every property specified in the report, and (b) issue a proclamation specifying the prescribed particulars and calling upon all persons having any interest therein or right thereto to prefer their claims in respect thereof to the Collector within thirty days from the service thereof in accordance with sub-sec.(2) Explanation.-In the case of any such property consisting of land or other immovable property, the word "management' shall include the making of necessary arrangements for the cultivation and letting of the same. (2) The proclamation issued under Clause (b), of sub- section (1) be served.- (i) by exhibiting a copy thereof at some conspicuous spot on or adjacent to the place where the last known owner of such property, if any, resided last or where the property was found and also, in the case of such property being immovable, on such property, (ii) by having the contents thereof proclaimed at the aforesaid place by beat of drum. (iii) by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of the office of the Collector issuing it, and (iv) by publishing a copy thereof in the [official Gazette] and, where the last owner of such property, if any, was at the time of his death, residing in some place outside the State also in some local daily newspaper having free circulation in the region. "
(3.) FROM reading of the provisions of Section 6 (1) (b) of the Act, 1956 it is crystal clear that the Collector on receipt of report under Section 4 shall make order in respect to the possession, maintenance, management, safe custody and taking care of each item of every property specified in the report and then shall issue a proclamation specifying the prescribed particulars of the property and calling upon all persons having any interest therein or right thereto prefer their claims in respect thereof, in the present case, the Collector has not given any particulars about the property reported under Section 4 of the Act of 156. The specifications of the property in proclamation under Section 6 (1) (b) is not an empty formality but is mandatory. The purpose of specifying the prescribed particulars of the property in proclamation is to make the persons interested known to the property and also enable them to submit their claims effectively. The non-mentioning of the specifications of property in fact frustrates the proceedings under the Act of 1956. In the present case, the Additional Collector in the proclamation dated 12. 7. 1991 has not given any particulars of the property reported under Section 4 of the Act of 1956. he has simply stated that the list of the property so reported can be seen in office during office hours. The non-mentioning of specifications of the property reported in the proclamation makes the proclamation and its subsequent proceedings void. I am not at all convinced with the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents that by non-mentioning of particulars of the property no prejudice is caused to the petitioners. It is well settled that if a manner is prescribed to discharge certain duties then the same is required to be done in the same manner. the prescribed procedure under a statute is required to be followed and any deviation from it in usual course is not permissible. The deviation may there be, but for cogent reasons and that too not be having effect of frustrating the object of statute. The object of the Act of 1956 is to vest escheat property with it but not a property which may be vested with a persons or persons being local heirs under the permissible degrees. If the particulars of property reported under Section 4 of the Act of 1956 is not mentioned in proclamation under Section 6 of the Act of 1956 then the person/persons interested may not be in a position to make their claim effectively. This certainly causes prejudice to he person/persons concern. In view of the whatever discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the proclamation under Section 6 (1) (b) of the Act of 1956 is always required to have specific particulars of the property reported. The proclamation impugned lack such particulars, therefore, it is not in accordance with law and, therefore, whatever proceedings taken in pursuance of it and subsequent thereto are illegal. ;