- (1.) APPEAL No. 24 of 1955 and revision No. 9 of 1955, District Chittor, arise out of a single judgment of the Additional Commissioner, Udaipur, dated 1.8.1955, in a case under sec. 101 of the Quanun Mal Mewar 1947, and will be disposed of by this judgment.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record as well. In view of the order that we are passing in the case we refrain from expressing any opinion upon the merits at this stage. Suffice to observe that a report was lodged by Panna Singh Shehna on 27.2.51, with the Munsarmat Officer, Bhainsrodgarh, to the effect that Khema Dhakar of Kotra had died heirless. Proceedings were carried out upon this report and objections were filed by one Bhawana claiming himself to be the brother of the deceased Rama, a son-in-law of the deceased Khema. This Rama had predeceased Khema. The actual interval between the deaths of these persons has not been ascertained in the case. The Tehsil-dar reported on 6.3.1954 to the S.D.O., begun that the property in dispute was proved to be heirless and hence it be escheated to the Thikana. The S.D.O. by his order, dated 13.12.1954, held after examining the record that the property movable or immovable left by the deceased Rama should be handed over to the objector Bhawana who had proved himself to be Rama's brother and the properly that belonged to Khema alone should be placed under forfeiture. The Tehsildar while implementing this decision entertained some doubts and hence sought a further clarification vide his report, dated 18.1.55 from the S.D.O. The S.D.O, in turn submitted the case to the Collector who by his order, dated 24.2.1955, directed that all the property, irrespective of the fact as to whether it belonged to Khem or Rama be placed under forfeiture. Bhawana went up in appeal against this decision before the Additional Commissioner, Udaipur. The learned Additional Commissioner observed that the S.D.O. had no jurisdiction to pass a final order in the matter as the value of the property exceeded Rs. 500/- No reference has been made to the legal provision on the point but we presume that the learned Additional Commissioner had item No 81 of the former Rajasthan Notification No. 6952, dated 17.8.1948 in mind. Obviously this has no reference to the present case for the provision relates to auction proceedings. Forfeiture of heirless property is a matter which is clearly governed by item No. 15, Schedule 1 of the Quanun Mal, Mewar which appears to have been overlooked by the learned Additional Commissioner. The Deputy Collector and the Tehsildar have been given full powers in respect of ordering forfeiture of heirless property by this provision. It has been admitted by the learned counsel appearing for Bhawana that the question that Khema died without leaving behind any heirs entitled to succeed is not within the scope of any controversy. In fact Khema has died heirless. His objection is that Khema's death cannot be allowed to prejudice or in any way impair the rights of Bhawana to inherit the property left by the deceased Rama on the ground that Rama was at the time of his death living with his father-in-law Khema. The learned counsel for the Thikana does not contest the validity of his proposition. His argument is that there has been no proper enquiry on the point as to whether Rama was in fact in possession of any property and if so under what right. There exists on record documentary and oral evidence led by Bhawana to establish the details and identity of the property belonging to the deceased Rama. The learned Additional Commissioner, therefore, should have examined the record and given his finding on the point as to what items of property were left by Rama, and how they should be dealt with in the present case. The order of the learned Additional Commissioner as it stands does not throw any light upon these points involved in the case. In fact no attempt has been made in it to probe into the matter. It is difficult even to ascertain as to what was the intention of the learned Additional Commissioner while passing this order, for the operative part of the order is not clearly deducible from it. We would, therefore, allow the appeal and revision, set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner, dated 1.8.1955, and remand the case back to him with the direction that the appeal filed before him by Bhawana be reheard and decided afresh in the light of the observations made above;