Escheat provisions under Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act require demonstrable failure of legal heirs; mere absence of municipal records cannot extinguish ownership.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present writ petition arises out of a dispute concerning property bearing No. 18, Acharya Narendra Dev Marg (previously known as Old No. 6, Municipal Road), Dehradun, which was declared as escheat property and vested in the State Government under Section

29 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 .

2. The Petitioners, namely Km. Sapna @ Basundhara and Smt.

Rachna, are the daughters of Late Shri Pushpendra Singh Duggal, who is stated to have acquired the property in question through a registered sale deed dated 22.02.1990. Upon his death in the year 2006, the Petitioners claim to have succeeded to the said property as his legal heirs. Petitioner No. 1 is the unmarried daughter of the deceased, while Petitioner No. 2 is his married daughter. Both are presently residing in Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.

1

3. According to the Petitioners, it was only in the year 2008 that they came to know that the property in question had been declared escheat by the District Magistrate, Dehradun, vide order dated 23.11.2007, on the assumption that the deceased owner had died without leaving behind any legal heir.

4. In order to seek recall of the said order, the Petitioners preferred a Miscellaneous Application before the District Magistrate, Dehradun, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 2/4/2007–08, titled State vs. Property No. 18, Acharya Narendra Dev Marg. However, the said application remained pending for a considerable period, which led the Petitioners to approach this Court in Writ Petition No. 1779 (M/S) of 2011. That writ petition was disposed of on 25.08.2011 with a direction to the District Magistrate to decide the pending recall application expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months.

5. Pursuant to the said direction, the District Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 28.12.2011, rejecting the Petitioners' recall application. It is this order, along with the earlier order dated 23.11.2007, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. The Petitioners have claimed that the rejection order is erroneous, non-

speaking, and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Yogesh Upadhayay, submitted that the property in question was validly purchased by Late Shri Pushpendra Singh Duggal by means of a registered sale deed dated 22.02.1990. The said transaction conveyed absolute ownership to the deceased, which is evident not only from the registration records but also from various revenue entries and supporting documentation.

7. After the death of Shri Pushpendra Singh Duggalin the year

2006, the Petitioners, being his sole legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, inherited the said property. However, to their utter

2 surprise, they discovered in 2008 that the property had been erroneously declared as escheat and vested in the State by an order passed by the District Magistrate, Dehradun, without any notice to the legal heirs.

8. It was urged that the invocation of Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act in the present case was entirely unwarranted, since that provision comes into play only when there is a complete absence of legal heirs. The Petitioners, being lineal descendants of the deceased owner, their claim to succession was direct and unimpeachable.

9. It was further submitted that the Collector had acted in breach of the principles of natural justice while declaring the property as escheat in the order dated 23.11.2007. The recall application filed thereafter was rejected without proper application of mind, and despite the direct