T.B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. This original petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging Ext. P15 order passed by the District collector under the provisions of the Kerala Escheats and Forfeitures Act, 1964, hereinafter referred to as the Escheats Act and Exts. P18 and P22 decisions of the Land Revenue Commissioner and the Government of Kerala confirming the Collector's decision. Heard the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

2. Acting on information stated to have been given by a person that the parcel of land with building, which is involved in this litigation; 'property' for short, hereinafter; has escheated, the District Collector directed the Tahsildar to conduct a preliminary enquiry. Through Ext. P13, the Tahsildar reported that the property belonged to Shri Navnagar Sadavarat Trust which is the petitioner in this original petition. The Collector thereafter extended opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and issued the impugned Ext. P15 as an order under Section 6 of the Escheats Act. The Land Revenue Commissioner confirmed the Collector's decision in an appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 7 of that Act. The petitioner challenged that decision before the Government. Initially, there was an order of remit to the Commissioner to decide on two issues which, according to the Government, were relevant. This Court, through an original petition, set aside that remand. Thereafter, the Government issued the impugned Ext. P22 whereby it confirmed Ext. P18 decision of the Land Revenue Commissioner and Ext. P15 decision of the Collector.

3. The grounds of challenge levied against the impugned orders supported by the arguments by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner raise three issues. First is that the consistent stand of the statutory authorities being that the property belonged to a trust as reported by the Tahsildar, there is no question of any escheat particularly under Section 3 of the Escheats Act which deals only with situations of death of a person intestate and without leaving heirs. The second issue raised is that a due enquiry by the Tahsildar under the directions of the Collector had categorically showed that the property belonged to the petitioner trust and such finding having been acted upon by the Collector to issue Ext. P15 order, there was no jurisdiction to probe into or adjudicate upon the question as to whether the said trust held title to the property. This argument is footed on the fundamental premise that the impugned orders stand on the basic assumption that the property belonged to a trust as stated in the Tahsildar's report. The third is that the property was dealt with as part of the properties of the petitioner trust as is evidenced by the decisions of the Bombay City Civil Court evidenced through Exts. P7, P8 and P9 rendered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1951, for short, the 'Bombay Act'. Ext. P5 is the certificate of registration of the petitioner under that Act. It is argued that the evidentiary value of Exts. P7, P8 and P9 taken along with Ext. P5 is that they stand affirming, among other things, that the property is part of the trust properties in the hands of the petitioner. It is hence contended that those acts of the authorities and Court under the Bombay Act are public acts records and judicial proceedings which were to be given free faith and credit throughout the territory of India as envisaged by Article 261 of the Constitution of India. It is also argued that the decree of the Bombay City Civil Court conclusively establish in rem the title of the petitioner Trust to the property.

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader argued that action was initiated on the basis of the information furnished by a person and the Tahsildar's report that the property belonged to the petitioner trust is of no consequence which could impair the jurisdiction of the Collector to further exam