IMPORTANT POINTS
Notice issued by Supreme Court confined to limited question, will not be an impediment in the Court considering all issues raise in the appeal.
Under ‘doctrine of escheat’ property of an individual dying intestate and not leaving behind an heir who is qualified to succeed to the property devolves on government subject to all its obligations and liabilities. Onus rests heavily on person asserting that a person died intestate without leaving any heir.
Succession to Property of Math or religious institution, in absence of any principle laid down by the founder, is regulated by the custom or usage of the institution.
Where circumstances u/s 167(1) of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 are not satisfied, Collector cannot exercise his power u/s 167(2).

JUDGMENT :

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

1. This appeal has arisen from a judgment rendered on 15 May 2007 by a Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. Finding no substance in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court affirmed the order passed by the Collector, Haridwar on 12 May 2003 holding that the property in dispute stands vested in the government under Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This finding has been premised on the basis that there exists no heir to succeed to the property following the death of Mohan Lal.

2. The petitioner claims to be a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The Trust claims to have a vast amount of property at Haridwar which is being used for charitable purposes including (i) arranging for the stay of pilgrims and saints who visit Haridwar and providing food and other facilities to them; and (ii) performing and organizing religious functions. The petitioner conducts a Sanskrit Vidyalaya as well as a dispensary.

3. Swamy Udhav Das Ji Maharaj was visually challenged. On 28 November 1955, he is stated to have purchased land admeasuring two bighas and fifty khewat at Haridwar in the name of his chela, Mohan Lal. According to the petitioner, the Swamy founded the Kutchi Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust. He is stated to have executed a will on 22 October 1956 nominating some individuals who would manage and administer his properties, including the property in question, after his lifetime. According to the petitioner, this was a second registered will executed by the Swamy since some of those who were nominated in an earlier registered will were not inclined to accept the responsibility.

4. On 13 January 1957, the Swamy died. The Trust is stated to have been registered on 11 November 1957. Among the objects of the Trust, are the following:

“4. The main purpose for which the Ashram was established at Haridwar under the inspiration of Mahrajshri Odhavdasji has been to provide a centre and shelter for those Kutchi people in particular and others in general who go to the Holy Shrines at Haridwar, for the purposes of devotion and their peace of mind and the same shall continue to be the main objective and purposes of the Trust along with any other objective which might further the main object such as religious education prayers etc.

5. It was the cherished object of the revered Maharajshri Odhavdasji that the Ashram should provide both shelter and food to the deserving and this is being done within the limitation of the resources at the disposal of the Trust. Many people have expressed their desire to donate moneys for the purposes of running an “Anna Kshetra” as desired by their late Guru Maharaj.”

According to the petitioner, all the movable and immovable properties were vested in the Trust. On 23 March 1958, an unregistered declaration is stated to have been executed by Mohan Lal stating that though the property was purchased in his name by the late Swamy, neither he nor his legal heirs would have any rights in the property. The whereabouts of Mohan Lal are not known since 1958.

5. On 10 July 2001, a suit [Suit 225 of 2011] was instituted by the petitioner seeking an injunction against the third respondent (an individual by the name of Swamy Mahanand Awdhut Tatambri) described in these proceedings as :

“Chela Swamy Brahmchari Ji Awdhut, Resident of Tatambri Ashram, Sapt Sarovar Road, Bhoopat Wala, Haridwar, Uttarakhand.”

The suit for injunction appears to have been instituted on the ground that the third respondent was attempting to make a construction on some part of the property in dispute. A few months after the institution of the suit, the third respondent filed a complaint on 15 October 2001 before the Collector alleging that the property belonged to Mohan Lal. According to him, a Patta was executed on 28 November 1955 in favour of Mohan Lal by Govind Ram and Shiv Ram. According to the complaint, Mohan Lal had died and there bei