R.N. Shay, J.

By this Court eight writ applications challenging a common order are being disposed of.

2. The prayer in those applications for a grant of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the third respondent (Deputy Commissioner Giridih) dated 12.3.1993 in case no. 41 of 1986 in the circumstances started hereinafter.

3. In the Giridih District Gazettee extraordinary dated 28th August 1986 of the following notification was publish (Annexure – 4):

On bing satisfied with the report D.C.L.R. Sadar Giridih and other relevant papers that Shri Birendra Kumar Biswas, son of Late Brijendra Kumar of New Barganda, P.O. Giridih town died on 8.4.1986 without any legal claimant and as under Rule 356 of the Miscellaneous Rules of the Board of Revenue Bihar all property real or personal life by Shri Birendra Kumar Biswas belongs to the State. In exercise of the power conferred on me under Rule 358 of the Miscellaneous Rules of the Board of Revenue Section 8 Regulation XIX of 1810. I, U.K. Sinha, I.A.S. Deputy Commissioner, Giridih being the ex-officer in local agent of the Board of Revenue order for taking immediate possession of the moveable and immovable property left by Shri Birendra Kumar Biswas on behalf and the Government an direct M.D., D.R.D.A. Giridih to take possession of this property as mentioned blow and to report compliance. The property not found in possession of deceased Shri Biswas should not be occupied.

1. 0.7 dec., Thana No. 95 ward no. 1, Holding no. 213 Maktpur, Giridih.

2. 8.1/4 dec. Thana No. 95 ward no. 1, Holding no. 213Thana no. 306 Maktpur Giridih.

3. 0.9 Kattha Thana No. 95 ward no. 1, Holding no. 213Thana no. 905 Maktpur Giridih.

4. 0.9 Kattha Thana No. 95 ward no. 1, Holding no. 213Thoka no. 306 Maktpur Giridih.

5. One Bigha 4 Kathas, Thana No. 95 ward no. 1, Holding no. 213 Thoka no. 306 Maktpur Giridih.

6. 4 Kathas, Ward no. 1, Holding no. 95, Makatpur, Giridih.

7. 5 Kathas, 4 Chatok, ward no. 1, Holding no. 205, Thana no. 95 Thoka no. 417, Makstupr, Giridih.

8. 2 Katta, ward no. Thoka no. 407 Makatpur, Giridih.

3. A series of objection were filed by the several person including the petitioners before the third respondent to revoke and recall the notification for the reason stated in the objections. As objections were common by way of illustration the objection filed by Alakh Narain Darad (CWJC no. 2914/93(R)) may be considered.

The objection of this petitioner was he was a bonafide purchaser of land under holding no. 205 Thana no. 95 of Makatpur Giridih by the virtue of registered sale deed executed by Late B.K. Biswas was the owner of the petitioners mentioned in the gazette notification whose property of the State by low of escheat.

It was further asserted in the objection that the objector petitioner had sold to different persons and the remaining land as in his possession.

4. More or less similar claim were made by other objectors.

5. Third respondent by a common order (annexure 6) rejected the objection inter alia on the following grounds :-

(a) The properties subject matter of the proceeding had all along being in possession of Late Biswas.

(b) The sale deeds conceited by the deceased were without consideration. Hence no title passed to the purchasers. The transactions were void under the transfer of property Act.

(c) The mutation order obtained by the purchaser were obtained by the purchaser were obtained with fraud and hence not binding on the State.

6. The question for consideration is whether in purposed exercise of power made Rule 356 of the Board Miscellaneous Rules the property could be declared escheat property.

The answer must be in the negative. It is indeed surprising that the third respondent was not property advised by the Government pleader. It is only a civil court who can declare a property escheat property the State must seek a declaration to this affect by instating a civil suit before a court of competent jurisdiction. The Deputy Commissioner has no authority to usurp the jurisdiction o