- (1.) THIS special appeal has been filed against the order of Hon'ble Shri Gajendra Singh, Member dated 2. 3. 66, whereby he rejected the petition filed by the appellant against the order of the Additional Collector, Udaipur dated 4. 3. 65. THIS case relates to proceedings under Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act pending in the court of the Collector, Udaipur which were initiated on receipt of information from Premsingh respondent. As Premsingh did not appear on 7. 4. 64, his application was dismissed in default On 9. 4. 64 he filed an application for the restoration of proceedings alleging that he was not able to attend the court owing to illness. He also filed a certificate by a Doctor in support of his plea. It was contended on behalf of the appellant, during the course of the restoration proceedings, that the certificate of illness issued by the Doctor bore the dated 6. 8. 64 and thus there was no sufficiency of cause for the absence of the respondent on 7. 4. 64. THIS contention was repelled by the respondent on the ground that the date 6. 8. 64 had been entered by the Doctor by mistake. THIS argument prevailed with the Additional Collector, Udaipur who ordered the restoration of the escheat proceedings on payment of Rs. 10/- as costs to the appellant. Against this order the appellant filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. The learned Member who heard the revision petition examined the record and found that the restoration application had been filed by the respondent within two days of the dismissal of the original application. It was accompanied by a certificate from the Medical & Health officer, Kanod dated 8. 4. 64. The learned Member found that the date on which the certificate was given was 8. 4. 64 but the Doctor while issuing the Certificate had wrongly entered the date as 6. 8. 64. It was observed by the learned Member that no proof was required for the fact that the Doctor had entered the wrong date as the certificate was actually issued on 8. 4. 64. The learned member further observed that in escheat proceedings it is the court's duty to make a searching enquiry in the interest of the State and the co-operation of any informer or a petitioner should always be welcome to the court which is seized of the matter. It was further observed that unless the court is satisfied that no case has been made for escheat the question of dropping the proceedings should not arise. It was, therefore, remarked that no useful purpose would be served by entering into the enquiry whether or not the respondent was really ill on the date when his application was dismissed in default. In fact, the dismissal of the proceedings under Escheats Regulation was a mistake on the part of the court which irregularity has since been rectified. In the circumstances the revision petition was dismissed.
(2.) NOW the petitioner has come up in special appeal and has reiterated the same arguments. It is also contended that the informer Premsingh had given no affidavit and the lower court had not given any opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine the informer. We are not impressed by the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The facts as narrated by the learned single member in his order of dismissal of the revision filed by the appellant are not disputed. We fully endorse the view taken by the learned single member that under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act the duty is cast on the court viz , the Collector to make investigation and to determine whether the property in question should vest in the State or not. Sub-sec. 5 of sec. 6 clearly lays down that it is the duty of the Collector to obtain full information from the public records and by personal inquiries respecting any property to which this Act applies. He should, however, in all cases be careful not to infringe any private rights or to occasion unnecessary trouble or vexation to individuals. Sub-sec. 9 provides that if the Collector is satisfied after enquiry in accordance with this section that the property in question is not of the nature to which this Act applies, he shall order the proceedings to be closed and the property to be allowed to remain with the person in whose possession it might then be, or if possession thereof has been taken under sec. 4 or sec. 6. , it shall be restored to the person from whom possession was so taken. Alternatively, if the Collector finds that the owner of the property in question died intestate and without leaving any known heir and there is no person entitled to claim the property and that it is a bonafide case of property vesting in the State as ultima heres by escheat or as bona vacantia, he shall apply to the court for a vesting order in respect of the property and for the custody thereof in the meanwhile. So far as the informer is concerned it is no where laid down that he is bound to be present on every hearing. Once the proceeding have been initiated under this Act, the duty is cast on the Collector to carry on the investigation in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Sec. 3 clearly provides that the general superintendence of all property to which this Act applies is vested in the Collector who will inform himself fully through the Assistant Collectors and Tehsildars subordinate to him of all such property and act in the manner required by law subject to the directions of the Board and the orders of the State Government. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no substance in this special appeal. It is hereby rejected with costs. .;