Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

A short question though intricate which arises for consideration in the present writ petition is as to whether a Collector, while purportedly exercising his powers under Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, can declare a property as an “escheat” property? It is this order, which has been passed by the Collector, Haridwar on 01.09.2005 is put to challenge in this writ petition.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner (Dera Baba Dargah Singh) is a registered Waqf under the Waqf Act and its registration dates back to 08.04.1926 and it was a ^^oDQ+ukek vyy vkSykn** . The registration of the waqf has been placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner by virtue of the supplementary affidavit, which is not denied, and is taken on record today.

3. Heard Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/Collector. He contended that the property which was initially in the possession and vested with Mr. Dharmanand, who is said to have died intestate and as such in the absence of there being any heirs succeeding his estates, the property would vest with the State government, in the light of the provisions contained under Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and thus as per his contention the property would be an “escheat” property, as declared by the Collector was absolutely justified, and he vehemently supporting the order of Collector.

4. On the contrary, the argument extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the property was a Waqf property, which was given to Dharmanand as a lisencee to occupy the premises and to use it for the purpose of Dera and on his death it will not have any affect so far as the estates or succession of the property is concerned because it will continue to be the property vested with the Waqf as described in the khewat No. 1 the revenue record of rights. Be that as it may. Without entering into the factual matrix, this Court is confining itself to the competence of the Collector as to whether he could have declared the property as to be an “escheat” property or not while exercising powers u/S 29 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

5. The controversy pertaining to that aspect has traveled from one of the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court which was also affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court whereby the Collector’s orders under Section 29 of Hindu Succession Act was upheld the order of Collector vesting the property to states as “escheat” property. The same was put to challenge before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3878 of 2009 – Kutchi Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust Evam Anna Kshetra Trust Thr. Velji Devshi Patel Vs. Collector, Haridwar & Ors.

6. In the said case, the appellant/petitioner before that Court had claimed themselves to be a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, whereas in the instant case, the petitioner herein claimed to be a registered Waqf as “Alal Aulad” as registered on 08.04.1923. One of the question which would also be an important issue to be considered, though was not a controversy in the earlier litigation as settled upto the Hon’ble Apex Court is as to whether a property which is vested in a registered Trust or a registered Waqf, whether the provisions of Section 29 would be attracted or not as upon their registration, they acquire the states of being a juristic person and having right to sue and being sued independently irrespective of its constituents.

7. This Court feels that since the petitioner in its registration as waqf takes the status of being a body constituted and registered under a statute, it becomes a juristic person and there ought not be any issue pertaining to intestatement because the status of the trust or a society or a waqf does not cease its life till the body itself is dissolved in accordance with the provision of the Act under which it is created.

8. The Hon’ble Apex Court has