|ESCHEAT OF PROPERTY

Aravind Menon
Escheat is a common law doctrine which transfers the
property
of a
person who dies without heirs to the crown or state'. This
concept is similar to another common law doctrine of "bona
vacantia' wherein an
ownerless property reverts back to thee
crown or state.

Escheat of property
The Kerala Escheats and
Forfeitures Act, 1964 (herein after 'the
Act) provides for administration,
disposal of escheats and
supervision, custody and
unclaimed property. The Act
for escheat of the provides
property of a person who dies intestate and
without leaving heirs.
Property can be both movable and
immovable property. However, a
as escheat or bona
property cannot be declared
vacantia unilaterally. Certain
substantive and
procedural requirements are to be
tollowed. Whenever a claim
of escheat is
put forward by the Government the onus lies
heavily on the state to
provethe absence of
any heir of the
respondent anywhere in the world.
Normally,
the Court frowns
on the estate
being
taken by escheat unless
the essential
conditions for escheat are fully and
Further, before the plea of escheat can completely satisfied.
be entertained,
must be there
a
public notice given by theGovernment so that if there
is any claimant anywhere in the
country or tor that matter in
the world, he may come torward to contest the claim of the
State'. Apart from public notice other
procedural reqjuirements
-

Ihttp:/len wikipedia.org/wiki/Escheat e162015

2 Section 3, Kerala Escheat and Forteitures Act.
19o
3 State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh. (1983) 3 SCC T18
 Escheat of Property 207

include an enquiry into the actual state ot property (escheat),

issuing notice, proceedings tor recovery of possession, appeal
etc. Any move without following the said procedure
order and issuing notification is
straightway passing an

arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice'

As per the Kerala Escheat and Forfeitures Rules, 1965, it is

incumbent upon the Village Officer to intimate the ownerless

state of a property within his jurisdiction to the Tahsildar who
to the
inturn shall intimate the Collector.
Act
According
whenever the Collector receives information about a property
belonging to a person who had died intestate without leaving
a heir within his jurisdiction he shall conduct a preliminary
enquiry into it. S. 5 requires publication in the Gazette of a
notice calling upon all persons who may have any claim to the
property to appear and preter the claim within six months of
the date of the publication of the notice if as a result of the
enquiry under 5. 4 the Collector is satisfied that the deceased
had died intestate and without leaving any heirs and that it is a
prima facie case of escheat. S. 6 then provides for investigation
into any claim so made under S. 5 and for a decision by the
Collector. It also provides that "the decision of the Collector
shall be final, subject to the provisions of S.7 and
7

provides for an appeal to the Board from the decision of the

11". S.
Collector under S. 6 within the prescribed period and it savs
that the decision on such appeal shall be final subject to the
further appeal prescribed therein to the Government withun
the prescribed period and S. 11 which provides tor a suit within
the prescribed period
tor a civil suit
by the aggrieved person. S. 11 pruvides
within th" prescritbed peridd. The scheme

1e4
Sectiun 4, Kerala Echeat and Forteithures At
208
Hand Book on Land Laws

therefore, is that the

decision of the Collector made under
of the Act is S. 6
final subject
the decision
to
a suit under S. 11 filed
within the
in
appeal under S. 7 or
prescribed period".
CASE NOTTE
M/s. Indian Timber and
Plywood
State of Kerala, AIR 1994Corporation
Ltd v.
SC 2141
Facts: The appellant
challenged the order of the Collector
escheat of 4,200 acres of land in for the
Act. The Jenmakaran Tharakan under the
appellant did not filed an
appeal under section 7
civil suit under section 11 or a

recovery of
of the Act. On this basis the suit for
possession of these lands was filed against the
appellant who were in unlawful
inturn was resisted by the
possession of the same which
appellant claiming title over the
property. To get over the effect of failure to
file suit in accordance with S.
a appeal under S. 7 or
11 of Kerala
Forfeitures Act, 1964 the defendants contended Escheats and
of the order of escheat was that the validity
all
challenged in writ petition whereina

questions regarding the validity of escheat

the order made therein were lett
open
proceedings and
"to the extent
in law" for
being raised in the permissible
Kerala.
pending suit filed by the State of

Issue: Is the escheat proceedings valid? lt not can it be set aside?

Judgment: Writ petitions of appellants are of no avail to
circumvent the effect of finality attaching to the decision
of the
Collector made under S. 6 of the Act, on account of the
failure of
the appellants to assail the same merits in
on
accordance with S.7
and 11 of the Act. The only challenge in the writ
petitions was to

6 As per section 11 of the Kerala

Escheats
and Fortestures Act the suit
preferred within six months trom the time at which the action arose
shall te
 Escheat of Properly

the continuance of the procedings under the 1964 At when the

proceedings had been initiated under the Madras Endowments
Keygulations 1817, and not merits of the decislon of ther Collector
Hence, the Bscheat Order of the Collector under the Kearala Vscheot
and Forfeitures Act, 1964 having attained finality and that the
suit filed by the f9tate of Kerala for recowery of possesaion on that
basishad to succeed for that reasn alone,