Summary
The judges differed over Rajasthan’s initiation of escheat proceedings and takeover of Raja Sardar Singh’s estate despite claims by Khetri Trust and alleged heirs. Banumathi J would allow the State’s appeal, leaving possession and statutory-compliance questions to the pending revenue appeal. Banerjee J would uphold the High Court’s intervention for want of the jurisdictional finding of complete failure of heirs. The operative order referred the matter to the Chief Justice for reference to a larger Bench.
Issues
- Whether the prerequisites for initiating escheat proceedings and taking possession of the estate were satisfied.
- Effect of failure of the Trust’s probate petition and withdrawal of alleged heirs’ probate objections.
- Whether pending probate and revenue appeals justified declining the long-pending writ challenge.
Held
- Banumathi J considered the inquiries and notices sufficient to justify initiation of escheat proceedings. She treated the Trust’s claim as dependent on success in its testamentary appeal and considered the alleged heirs unable to assert their claims without establishing their status. (¶¶ Banumathi J: 29–39, Banumathi J: 44–45, Banumathi J: 53)
- Banumathi J would set aside the High Court judgment and require the Board of Revenue to decide whether the Trust’s present possession was protected by the proviso to section 4 and whether section 6 had been complied with. Her proposed disposition and the revenue decision would remain subject to the testamentary appeal. (¶ Banumathi J: 47–54)
- Banerjee J considered complete failure of heirs a jurisdictional prerequisite not established here. Failure to prove a will did not itself establish escheat, and withdrawal of probate objections did not extinguish the objectors’ status or estop succession claims. She also emphasised the statutory protection of existing possession. (¶¶ Banerjee J: 37–44, Banerjee J: 49–70)
- Banerjee J would sustain the High Court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction despite alternative remedies, particularly given the jurisdictional defect and the petition’s pendency for decades, and dismiss the State’s appeal. (¶ Banerjee J: 71–78)
- Because the judges reached opposing dispositions, the operative order directed placement before the Chief Justice of India for reference to a larger Bench; neither opinion constituted a final merits disposition of the appeal.
Result
Matter placed before the Chief Justice of India for reference to a larger Bench because of conflicting opinions: Banumathi J would allow the State’s appeal; Banerjee J would dismiss it. No final determination of the appeal or estate title by this Bench.