- (1.) THE facts of the case which has given rise to this appeal against an order of the Additional Collector, Jaipur, dated 20. 7. 56, may, in brief, be stated as below.
(2.) THE Patwari of village Malwas reported that Mst. Bhoori who was a chakdar and had some other movable and immovable properties had died without leaving any heir; and that Bhonrilal, the appellant, had unlawfully taken possession of the property left by her. A preli-minary enquiry was made by the Tehsildar. Bhonrilal, the appellant, filed objections before the Tehsildar and stated that Ram Sahai, the husband of the deceased widow did not die heirless as the appellant being one of his nearest reversioners had performed the last rites of the deceased as well as her husband Ram Sahai who had adopted him long ago. In support of this, the appellant produced several witnesses as well as the pedigree table. THE Tehsildar however, held that the appellant failed to prove that he was the lawful heir of the deceased. Accordingly, he proposed that the property left by the deceased should escheat to the Government. THE S. D. O. endorsed this recommendation and submitted the case to the Collector. THE appellant filed objections before the learned Additional Collector who heard the case and urged that he being the nearest reversioner of the husband of the deceased was his lawful heir ; and that the property left by the deceased could not therefore, vest by escheat in the Government. THE Additional Collector, however, overruled the contention of the appellant and accepted the recommendation of the lower courts. An appeal against this order was filed before the learned Additional Commissioner, who after examining the record of the case, ordered that as the matter deserved further enquiry the case be remanded to the Collector for giving another opportunity to the appellant to argue his case THE learned Additional Collector observed that in spite of several adjournments the appellant did not argue his case but insisted on for producing further evidence to prove the pedigree table which could not be allowed at this belated stage. He accordingly confirmed his previous decision and directed the property to go by escheat to the Government. It is against this order that the appellant filed this appeal before us under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Escheats Regulating Act, 1956. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that under the Act which was applicable to these proceedings, the learned Additional Collector had no powers to order the escheat under sub-section 9 (b) of sec. 6 of the Act which lays down that in a bonafide case of property vesting in the State as ultima haeres under Art. 296 of the Constitution of India by escheat or as bona vacantia, for want of a rightful owner, the Collector shall apply to the court (which means the court of a District Judge having jurisdiction over the place where the property is situated) for the vesting order in respect of the property and for the custody thereof in the meanwhile. It was urged that as the learned Additional Collector acted in contravention of the aforesaid express provision of law, the order given by him was not maintainable. It was also pointed out that during the course of enquiry the appellant having examined some of the witnesses requested the lower court to allow him an opportunity to prove the pedigree table by adducing some dependable and reliable evidence ; and that the learned Additional Collector rejected this request simply on the ground that this request was made at a very late stage. The learned Government advocate also frankly admitted that the procedure followed by the learned Additional Collector in so far as it contravened the provisions of sub-sec. 9 (b) of sec. 6 of the Act was illegal and could not be supported. As regards the other point, namely, his refusal to allow an opportunity to the appellant to prove the pedigree table by producing further evidence, the learned Government Advocate, however, urged that it was more or less a matter of discretion which need not be disturbed in appeal. We have looked into the record of the case. There is no doubt that the order given by the learned Additional Collector is clearly illegal as he had no authority under the Act to give a final order about the vesting of the property in the State either as ultima haeres or as bona vacantia. He, if he was satisfied that it was a clear case of escheat, should have moved the District judge having jurisdiction in the area under the said sub-sec. for vesting order in respect of the property. The court of the District Judge could then proceed under sec 8 of the Act and give its final order under sec. 9 of the Act. No such procedure has been followed by the learned Additional Collector and the order given by him is not maintainable. As regards the request of the appellant for producing fresh evidence in support of the pedigree table we find that in rejecting the same the learned Additional Collector acted in a rather perfunctory manner. It is a duty cast on the learned Collector under sec 6 of the Act to make a detailed enquiry after allowing a reasonable opportunity to the claimant to prove his case. An enquiry of this nature is more or less of a non-judicial type. Under sub-sec. 5 of sec. 6 of the Act, it has been specifically laid down that it shall be the duty of the Collector to obtain full information from the public records and by personal inquiry respecting any property to which this Act applies. This clearly pre-supposses that in deciding a case of escheat under the Act, the learned Collector has not only to make a searching enquiry himself but also to give ample opportunity to a claimant to prove his case. In the matter before us, the learned Additional Collector in spite of the request of the appellant to produce further evidence disallowed it merely on the ground that it was made at a late stage. We do not subscribe to this view. In our opinion, a further enquiry is clearly indicated. Taking this aspect of the matter, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the learned Additional Collector and remand the case back to him with the direction that he should give another opportunity to the appellant to prove the pedigree table and then decide the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Act , .;