Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Vipin Nayyar, petitioner, in person.

Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr.

Lalit Miglani, Advocate for respondent no.4.

2. Petitioner is resident of Gali No.8, Veerbhadra Marg, Rishikesh. According to him, a building owned by one Pradeep Dev S/o Rajkumar Dev is lying unattended at Gali No.8, Veerbhadra Marg, Rishikesh and whereabouts of Pradeep Dev are not known for the last 16 years. According to petitioner, the said property is being encroached upon by land mafia and squatters. According to petitioner, necessary action, in respect of the said property, needs to be taken under Section of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

3. As per the pleadings made in the writ petition, petitioner has approached the District Magistrate, Dehradun, by making representations.

Since no decision has been taken on those representations, therefore, petitioner has approached this Court, seeking the following relief:

“1. To issue the Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus directing District Magistrate Dehradun respondent no.2 to take an appropriate lawful decision by way of speaking and reasoned order on the representation dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure A-6) of the petitioner with regard to the property “Radha Dham” situated at Veerbhadra Marg Rishikesh, at the earliest within the time framed by this Hon’ble Court and/or.”

4. Learned State Counsel has drawn attention of this Court to a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Kutchi Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust Evam Anna Kshetra Trust Through Velji Devshi Patel Vs. Collector, Haridwar and others”, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 418. Paragraph nos.20 & 21 of the said judgment are extracted below:

“20. Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has been invoked by the Collector. Section 29 provides as follows:

“29. Failure of heirs.—If an intestate has left no heir qualified to succeed to his or her property in accordance with the provisions of this Act, such property shall devolve on the Government; and the Government shall take the property subject to all the obligations and liabilities to which an heir would have been subject.”

Section 29 embodies the principle of escheat. The doctrine of escheat postulates that where an individual dies intestate and does not leave behind an heir who is qualified to succeed to the property, the property devolves on the Government. Though the property devolves on the Government in such an eventuality, yet the Government takes it subject to all its obligations and liabilities. The State in other words does not take the property (at SCC p. 113, para 12) “as a rival or preferential heir of the deceased but as the lord paramount of the whole soil of the country”,

as held in State of Punjab v. Balwant Singh [State of Punjab v. Balwant Singh, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 108] . This principle from Halsbury's Laws of England [ 4th Edn., Vol. 17, Para 1439.] was adopted by this Court while explaining the ambit of Section 29. Section 29 comes into operation only on there being a failure of heirs.

Failure means a total absence of any heir to the person dying intestate. When a question of escheat arises, the onus rests heavily on the person who asserts the absence of an heir qualified to succeed to the estate of the individual who has died intestate to establish the case. The law does not readily accept such a consequence. In State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh [State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh, (1983) 3 SCC 118] , a Bench of three Judges of this Court formulated the principle in the following observations : (SCC p. 216, para 272) “272. It is well settled that when a claim of escheat is put forward by the Government the onus lies heavily on the appellant to prove the absence of any heir of the respondent anywhere in the world. Normally, the court frowns on the estate being taken by escheat unless the essential conditions for escheat are fully and completely satisfied. Further, before the p