Holding

A Collector's decision under Section 6 of the Kerala Escheats and Forfeitures Act, 1964 is final if no appeal under Section 7 or suit under Section 11 is filed within the prescribed period, rendering the State's suit for possession successful.

Summary

The State of Kerala filed a suit to recover possession of 4,200 acres of land, claiming that the lands had escheated to the State under the Kerala Escheats and Forfeitures Act, 1964. The Collector had issued an order on 24‑12‑1968 declaring the lands escheated, and the appellants did not file an appeal under Section 7 nor a civil suit under Section 11 within the prescribed period. The appellants challenged the escheat in writ petitions, arguing procedural irregularities, but the High Court upheld the Collector's order and decreed in favour of the State. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Collector's decision becomes final when no appeal or suit is filed as required by the Act, and that the writ petitions could not override this finality. Consequently, the State's suit for possession was valid and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The Collector's order under Section 6 of the Kerala Escheats and Forfeitures Act, 1964 becomes final in the absence of an appeal under Section 7 or a suit under Section 11.
Whether the High Court could allow the appellants to rely on the writ petitions to circumvent the finality of the Collector's order.
Whether the identity of the suit lands matched the lands declared escheated (addressed but not found to be a misreading).

Legislation cited

Kerala Escheats and Forfeitures Act, 1964s. 11, s. 3, s. 4, s. 5, s. 6, s. 7
Kerala Private Forests (Vesting & Assignment) Act, 1971s. 2(f)

Subjects

escheatcollector's orderfinalityKerala Escheats Actcivil suit for possessionwrit petitionSection 7 appealSection 11 suitprivate forest

Judgment

T

A THE INDIAN TIMBER AND PLYWOOD
CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

MARCH 31, 1994
B
[KULDIP SINGH, J.S. VERMA AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.)

Kera/a Escheats and Forfeitures Act, 1964: Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and
11.
c Land-Abandonment of by owner-Escheat Proceedings-Collector's
order escheating lands in favour of State-No appeal or suit against
Collector's order-Order attaining finality-Suit for possession of land by
State-Maintainability of

D The Respondent-State filed a suit against the appellants for recovery
of possession of suit lands on the ground that they were in unlawful
possesssion of the same. The case of the State was that consequent to the
abandonment of the disputed lands by its owner, escheat proceedings in ~'
respect of the said lands were initiated under the Kerala Escheats and
Forfeiture Act, 1964 wherein the Collector passed an order dated
E 24.12.1968 holding that the suit lands had escheated and belonged to the
State and that since the appellants filed neither an appeal under section
7 nor any suit under section 11 against the Collector's order it became
final and therefore the appellants were in unauthorised possession of suit
lands.
F ,_
The appellants resisted the suit claiming title to the suit lands and
challenged the escheat proceedings contendings that the identity of the suit
lands did not match with those acquired. They also stated that they had
challenged the validity of the escheat order in writ petitions and by an
order dated 24.12.70 passed by the High Court all questions regarding the
G
validity of escheat proceedings and the order made therein were left open
"to the extent permissible in law" for being raised in the pending suit filed
by the State.

The Trial Court rejected the State's claim and dismissed the suit.
-·
H On State's appeal the High Court reversed the decree of the Trial Court
240
\
INDIAN TIMBER AND PLYWOOD CORPN. v. STATE [VERMA, J.] 241

and decreed the suit holding that (i) the plaint schedule properties were A
properly identified; and (ii) since the State has proved that the owner had
left the property for good without any intention of asserting title to the
said property at any time the escheat proceedings were justified.

In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant B
that (i) the High Court was not justified in reversing the Trial Court's
decree; and (ii) that in view of the High Court's order dated 24.12.1970 all
questions raised in writ petitions remained open to them.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court
c
HELD : 1.1. The scheme of the Kerala Escheats and Forfeitures Act,
1964 is that the decision of the Collector made under Section 6 of the Act
is final subject to the decision in appeal under Section 7 or a snit under
Section 11 filed within the prescribed period. The decision of the Collector
was made in the present case after investigating into the claim of the D
defendants made under Section 5 of the Act and the defendants did not
prefer any appeal under Section 7 or file a civil suit under Section 11 of
the Act to challenge the Collector's decision against it. The escheat order
having attained finality, the suit filed by the State of Kerala for recovery
of possession on that basis had to succeed for that reason alone.
E
[245-E-G; 246-G]
1.2. There is also no misreading of evidence or any other inifirmity
in the discussion of evidence made by the High Court before reaching the
'' conclusion relating to identity of the suit lands. [244-C]
F
2. The observation made by the High. Court while dismissing the
appellants' writ petitions are of no avail to circumvent the effect of finality
attaching to the decision of the Collector made under Section 6 of the Act,
on account of the failure of the appellants to assail the sa.me on merits in
accordance with Sections 7 and 11 of the Act. The only challenge in the
writ petitions was to the continuance of the escheat proceedings under the G
1964 Act when the proceedings had been initiated under the 1817 Regula-
!ions, and not to merits of the decision of the Collector. Thus in the snit
filed by the State the correctness on merits of the collector's decision could
not be gone into, which is the challenge now made and not any chall~nge
on the ground on which the writ petitions were filed. [246-D-G] H
242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6120 of
1990.

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.3.90 of the Kerala High
Court in Appeal Suit No. 214 of 1980.

B S. Rangarajan, Sanjay Parekh and B.P. Singh for the Appellants.

AS. Narnbiar and M.A Firoz for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C VERMA, J. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of
the Kerala High Court dated 21st March, 1990 in AS. No. 214 of 1980
arising out of judgment and decree of the subordinate court, Kozhikode in
O.S. No.153 of 1972. The trial court had dismissed the originai suit filed
by the State of Kerala but the High Court has allowed the appeal of the
State of Kerala. Hence this further appeal by special leave by the defen-
D dants in the suit.

The subject matter of the suit is 4,200 acres of land in Jenmakaran
Tharakan. In short, the claim of the plaintiff-State of Kerala is that these
lands had escheated and belong to the State of Kerala and Order Ex. A-17
E dated 24.12.1968 to this effect made by the Collector of the district under
the Kerala Escheats and Forfeitures Ac~ 1964 had become final under the
Act, there having been no appeal under Section 7 or any suit in accordance
with Section 11 of the Act by defendants/appellants against the Order Ex.
A-17 made by the Collector. On this basis the suit for recovery of posses'
sion of these lands was filed against the defendants/appellants who were in
F unlawful possession of the same. The suit was resisted by the defen-
dants/appellants claiming title in these lands and denying the claim of
escheat. The trial court rejected the claim of the plaintiff-State and dis-
missed the suit. The High Court has reversed that decree and decreed the
suit. The appellants contend that reversal of the trial court's decree by the
G High Court is without any justification.

It would be appropriate to mention the findings of the High Court
in the background of the rival claims. It is beyond controversy that the
disputed lands were in the possession of some European planters in the
....
middle of the 19th century when they occupied the high lands of Malabar
H wherein Wynad hills were found to be congenial for coffee plantation.
I·
\
INDIAN TIMBER AND PLYWOOD CORPN. v. STATE [VERMA. J. J 243

Apparently such lands then were available in abundance for such occupa- A
tion. According to the plaintiff-State of Karala, the suit lands came to be
assigned by their original owner to one Antoon Lopez while there was a
transfer also to Mis Leckie & Co. Mis Leckie & co. in order to avoid any
possible dispute of title made a purchase also from Antoon Lopez. Nothing
was heard of Antoon Lopez after he sold his right to M/s. Leckie & Co. B
while that company seems to have gone out of existence during the early
years of the 20th century and had abandoned the lands near about 1910.
Escheat proceedings were initiated by issue of Ex. A-10 dated 26.4.1965 to
which erratum Ex. A-11 was issued in view of the objection Ex. A-37 filed
by the defendant/appellant. It was thereafter that the decision of the
Collector Ex. A-17 dated 24.12.1968 was made holding that the suit lands C
> had escheated to the State Government of Kerala. The defendants/appel-
lants being in unauthorised possession of these lands a suit for recovery of
possession was filed by the State of Kerala on 1.1.1969. The defendants
challenged the validity of the escheat proceedings and also contended that
identjty of the suit lands did not match with those acquired by the docu- D
ments Ex. A-1, A-2 and A-3 on which plaintiff-State relies. To get over the
effect of failure to appeal under Section 7 or file a suit in accordance with
Section 11 of Kerala Escheats and Forfeitures Act, 1964 the defendants
contended that the validity of the order of escheat was challenged in a writ
', petition wherein all questions regarding the validity of escheat proceedings
and the order made therein were left open "to the extent permissible in E
law" for being raised in the pending suit filed by the State of Kerala. The
defendants also claimed to have acquired title through one L.S. Krishnan
who had obtained a lease Ex. B'1 dated 18.3.1921, and executed sale deed
Ex. B-2 dated 11.5. 1921 in favour of United India Lumbering (Pvt.) Ltd.
Co. which went into liquidation and the properties thereof were then F
purchased by M. Cherian Pothen who then transferred the same in the
,) manner indicated lo enable defendants to acquire title to the suit lands.

The first question relates to the identity of the suit lands. The High
Court has considered at length the rival contentions in the light of the
entire evidence led by the parties and rejected the defendants' plea disput- G
ing the identity of lands. After discussing the entire evidence the High
Court held in para 45 of its judgement as under :

"We therefore hold on issues 1 to 3, differing from the findings of
the trial court, that the plaint schedule property was properly H
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I1994] 3 S.C.R.
A identified. that i! originally belonged lo Jenmakaran Tharakan and
that Mr. Anloon Lopez and M/s. Leckie & Company had title and
possession over the plaint schedule properly. We also hold. in the
alternative, on issues 2 and 3 that the rights of M/s. Leckie &
Company under Ex. A-1 had priority over the later transfer by
Anoth Tharwad under Ex. B-1 in favour of Shri L.S. Krishnan,
B which rights alone could have devolved on defendants 19 to 21."

We do not find any misreading of evidence or any other infirmity in
the discussion of evidence made by the High Court before reaching the
above conclusion relating to identity of the suit lands. The submission of
C learned counsel for the appellants to the contrary does not require any
further discussion.

The High Court has then considered the evidence relating to the
justification for commencing the escheat proceedings and making the order
and the decision Ex. A-17 by the Collector as a result of the enquiry held
D for that purpose. The High Court on this aspect held as under :

"fhe only inference ,possible therefore was that Mis Leckie &
Company was not registered either in Bombay or in London or
elsewhere in U.K. either as a company or as a firm. The concern
has gone completely out of existence. That seems to us to be a
E situation justifying escheat proceedings.

We hold that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that the
concern, M/s Leckie & Company, Bombay, which was the owner
F of the property according to Exs. A-1 and A-2, had gone out of
existence somewhere about 1910 and the constitutents of the con-
cern, whether they be joint owners or partners or share-holders,
had left the property for good without any intention of assenting •
title to the property at any time.
G

We have held that M/s. Leckie & Company was the owner of the
properly and that the property became ownerless by about 1910.
We have also held that Ex. A-10, A-11 and A-17 were valid. We
H therefore set aside the findings of the trial court on these issues
\
INDIAN TIMBER AND PLYWOOD CORPN. 1·. STATE [VERMA. J.] 245

and hold in fa'"''ur of the appellant". A

A brief reference lo the escheal proceedings and the impact of the
order Ex.A-17 dated 24.I2.1968 may be made at this stage. The Kerala
Escheat.s and Forfeitres Acti 1964 provides for administration, supervision,
custody and disposal of escheats and unclaimed property. Section 3
provides for cscheat of the property of a person who dies intestate and
B
without leaving heirs. Section 4 prescribes for a preliminary enquiry by the
Collector \vhenevcr he receives information about any such property within
his.jurisdiction. Section 5 requires publication in the Gazette of a notice
calling upon all persons who may have any claim to the property to appear
and prefer the claim within six months of the date of the publication of the c
notice if as a result of the enquiry under section 4 the Collector is satisfied
that the deceased has died intestate and without leaving any heirs and that
it is a prinia facie case of escheat. Section 6 then provides for investigation
into any claim so made under Section 5 and for a decision by the Collector.
It also provides that "the decision of the Collector shall be final, subject to D
the provisions of sections 7 and 11". Section 7 provides for an appeal to
the Board from the decision of the Collector under Section 6 within the
prescribed period and it says that the decision on such appeal shall be final
subject to the further appeal prescribed therein to the Government within
the prescribed period and Section 11 which provides for a suit within the
prescribed period by the aggrieved person. Section 11 provides for a civil E
suit within the prescribed period. The scheme, therefore, is that the
decision of the Collector made under Section 6 of the Act is final subject
to the decision in appeal under Section 7 or a suit under Section 11 filed
within the prescribed period.

F
The decision of the Collector Ex. A-17 dated 24.12.1968 was made
in the present case after investigating into the cl3.im of the defendants made
under Section 5 of the Act and the defendants did not prefer any appeal
under Section 7 or file a civil suit under Section 11 of the Act to challenge
the Collector's decision again.st it. In an attempt to overcome the conse-
quence of finality llf the Collector's decision against it by virtue of the G
provisions in the Acl, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance
on the writ petitions filed by the defendants anJ the order made therein.
He contended that the questions raised in the writ petitions remain open
to the defendants/appellants even now. Learned counsel placed reliance
particularly on a portion of the judgment dated 24.12.1970 in O.P. Nos. H
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R.

A 1107 and 1467 of 1969 filed by the appellants which were dismissed by the
Kerala High Court. The only challenge made by the appellants in the writ
petitions was to the validity of the escheat order on the ground that the
proceedings having been started under the Madras Endowments and Es-
cheats Regulations, 1817 it could not be continued under the Kerala
Escheats and Forfeitures Act, 1964. There was no challenge by the appel-
B lants in the writ petitions to the escheat order on the ground of jurisdiction
or violation of rules of natural justice. The High Court while dismissing the
writ petitions on the ground of pendency of the suit filed by the State of
Kerala,. observed as under :

C "It is not disputed that all questions regarding the validity of the
escheat proceedings and the legality of the orders can be raised,
to the extent permisible in law, in the suits which are pending."

(Emphasis supplied)
D
In our opinion the above observation made by the High Court while
dismissing the appellants' writ petitions are of no avail to circumvent the
effect of fmality attaching to the decision of the Collector made under
Section 6 of the Act, on account of the failure of the appellants to assail
the same on merits in accordance with Sections 7 and 11 of the Act. The
E only challenge in the writ petitions was to the continuance of the escheat
proceedings under the 1964 Act when the proceedings has been initiated
under the 1817 Regulations, and not to merits of the decision of the
Collector. Moreover, the High Court in its observation has merely said that
the grounds, 11 to the extent permissible in law11 would remain open in the
F suit. Obviously in the suit filed by the State of Kerala the correctness on
merits of the Collector's decision could not be gone into, which is the
challenge now made and not any challenge on the ground on which the
' /

writ petitions were filed, assuming the liberty to the defendant -appellant
extended to raising the available grounds as a defendant in the suit. It
would thus appear that the fi'.lality of the Collector's decision Ex.A-17
G made under Section 6 of the Kerala Escheats and Forfeitures Act, 1964 is
by itself sufficient to negative the defence in the present suit. In other
words, the EscheatOrder Ex-A-17 having attained finality, the suit filed by
the State of Kerala for recovery of possession on that basis had to succeed
for that reason alone. No further question does really arise for any serious
H consideration in this appeal. This alone is sufficient to uphold the High
\
INDIAN TIMBER AND PLYWOOD CORPN. v. STATE [VERMA, J.] 247

Court's decision decreeing the suit of the State of Kerala. A
In view of the above conclusion, it is unnecessary to deal with any
other submission of learned counsel for the appellants or even with the
submission of learned counsel for the respondents made in the alternative
that the suit lands are "private forest" as defined in Section 2(f) of the
Kerala Private Forests (Vesting & Assignment) Act, 1971 and therefore B
they have vested in the State of Kerala by virtue of that Act free from all
encumbrances. This alternative submission of learned counsel for the
respondents was to contend that even if the claim of plaintiff-State could
not be upheld on the ground of escheat, it must succeed on the ground of
vesting of private forest in the State of Kerala. In the view that we have C
taken it is unnecessary to examine this alternative submission of learned
counsel for the as well as reply of learned CSounsel for the appellants
respondents tliat the sriit lands do not fall witliin the definition of 'private
forest'.

We do not see any ground to interfere in the appeal. Consequently, D
the appeal is dismissed with costs.

T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.