Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed against the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 23.5.2000 and 5.11.1998 and that of the Collector, Tonk dated 21.11.1996. The Collector, Tonk by his order dated 21.11.1996 held that Mangi Lal S/o Sultan Khan, B/c Luhar, R/c Lawa, Tehsil Malpura died without leaving any heir and therefore the disputed land measuring 26 bighas and 2 biswas situated in revenue Village Lawa should be recorded as escheat under the provisions of Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956 (for short - 'the Act'). Factual matrix of the case is that the Tehsildar Malpura on 20.9.1973 forwarded a report to the Collector under Sec. 4 of the Act to the effect that Mangi Lal has died without leaving any heir and that the petitioners are in illegal possession of his land. The Collector, however, remanded the matter to the Tehsildar again for holding a full -fledged enquiry. Tehsildar submitted his fresh report on 20.7.1987, but this time stating that petitioners Jumma and Gafoor are the sons of brother of Mangi Lal, therefore, the proceedings under the Act be dropped. The Collector, Tonk, however, did not accept his report and issued a proclamation under Rule 6(b) of the Act on 28.6.1988 inviting objections from general public. Petitioners submitted their claim before the Collector on 17.10.1988 and asserted that deceased Mangi Lal did not die heirless and that they are sons of the brother of the deceased and therefore, his legal heirs. It was submitted that Mangi Lal's grandfather Khaju had two sons, namely, Sultan and Kalu. While Sultan had two sons namely Lalu and Mangu @ Mangi Lal. Kalu also had two sons, Jamal and Khaju. Both Lalu and Mangu @ Mangi Lal died issue less and the petitioner Gafoor who is son of Jamal and petitioner Jumma who is son of Khaju are thus nephew of Mangi Lal and are therefore, his legal heirs. The District Collector by this order dated 21.11.1996 dismissed the claim of the petitioners. The appeal filed against the said judgment by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue was also dismissed by the Board vide judgment dated 5.11.1998.
(2.) Ms. Ashish Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the orders passed by the Board of Revenue as well as the Collector are contrary to the law and the facts. There was no reason for the District Collector not to accept the case of the petitioner that they are legal heirs of late Mangi Lal who died issueless. It was argued that as per requirement of Sec. 6(5) of the Act, the Collector ought to have obtained full information from public records and made a thorough enquiry before declaring the property as escheat because property of a citizen cannot be so lightly usurped by the State by recourse to the aforesaid Act. It was argued that the land in dispute was mutated in the name of petitioners Gafoor and Jumma in equal proportion by the competent authority by order dated 15.2.1976. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Bihar v/s. Radha Kishna Singh & Ors. reported in : (1983) 3 SCC 118 and Sate of Rajasthan & Ors. v/s. Board of Revenue, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3554/98 decided by this Court on 25.7.2007.
(3.) Shri Sanjay Srivastava, learned Deputy Govt. Counsel Opposed the writ petition and argued that the Board of Revenue as well as the Collector have correctly decided the issue and there is no case for interference by this Court. It was argued that petitioner Gafoor in fact had claimed the land of deceased Mangi Lal on the strength of the will according to which, entire property was bequeathed by deceased Mangi Lal to him. He however could not prove the genuineness of this will before the Tribunal. He produced only photostat of the will, which was not even registered. On the other hand, petitioner Jumma had also claimed the land by virtue of his relationship with deceased Mangi Lal and asserted that he made him as owner of the land even during his lifetime. Both of them disputed entitlement of each other. It was argued that the land was wrongly mutated in the name of the petitioners on the strength of a will, existence of which could not be proved. It was argued that none of them have substantiated their claim before the learned District Collector, therefore, the District Collector rightly declared the property as escheat confiscating the same to the State.;