AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Srinivasan, J.—The former writ petition is for issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to hand over the treasures set out in the
petition or to pay just compensation to the petitioner under the provisions of the Indian Treasure Trove Act, 1878. The latter writ petition is to
issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent namely, the Deputy Collector
(Revenue), Pondicherry, in No. 2207/ A4/ 84, dated 15-6-90 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to hand over the treasure to the
petitioner.
Facts leading to the filing of the two writ petitions are as follows:-- The petitioner was employed as Bulldozer Operator in the Agricultural
Department of Pondichery. On 1-12-1971 during the levelling operation of the land bearing S. No. 31/1/2 of Sialam Village, the petitioner found 6
idols hiding in the land belonging to one Varada Reddiar, Thirupuvanai. The Deputy Collector (Revenue), Pondicherry, as Collector under the
Indian Treasure Trove Act, 1878, has published a notification in the Gazette on 30-6-1972 calling upon all the persons who are claiming the
treasure, or any part thereof, to appear before him on 20-12-1972 and put forward their claims, if any, as provided under Sec. 5(a) of the Indian
Treasure Trove Act, 1878. Pursuant to the notification, enquiry was conducted from 13-12-1972 to 22-12-1972. The statements of the petitioner
as well as the owner of the land namely, Varada Reddiar were recorded. The Collector by order dated 2-3-1972 declared that there was nothing
to show that the treasure was hidden by any one within 100 years before the date of finding and also declared the treasure as ownerless under
Sec. 9 of the Act. Varada eddiar filed an appeal against the order before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. The appeal was dismissed,
which was challenged in W. P. No. 995/75 in this Court. The same was dismissed and W. A. 550/77 filed against the same was also dismissed on
15-10-1982.
In the meanwhile, the petitioner prayed for return of the treasure to him by letter dated 26-4-1978 and he was the finder of the same. The
Revenue Authority informed him that compensation would be paid to him by the Agriculture Department, as the treasure was declared to be
ownerless and he was only an employee of the Department. The petitioner filed W. P. 3518/ 78 praying for quashing of said communication by the
respondents. The writ petition was allowed by this Court and the appeal by the respondents was also dismissed on 15-10-1982. Thus, it was
declared by the court that the petitioner was the actual finder of the idols within the meaning of the Act and not as an employee in the Agriculture
Department.
The petitioner filed W. P. No. 3793 of 1984 with the prayer already set out. He prayed for an interlocutory order for a direction to the
respondents to return the treasure to him. That application was dismissed. The Under Secretary to the Government (Culture) reported that the
Pondicherry Museum intended to acquire the treasure by payment of compensation to the person entitled thereto. For the purpose of determining
the value of the article, the Superintending Archaelogist, Archaelogical Survey of India, Southern Circle, Fort St. George, Madras was requested
on 11-7-83 to fix the value of the 6 items of idols as per the provisions of the Act. The Curator, Government Museum, Pondicherry was again
asked to elucidate as to the procedure for assessment of the value of the metals. The Curator replied that the value of the idols was to be fixed as
per the Explanation given in the foot note of the Indian Treasure Trove (Pondicherry) Rules, 1963, according to which, the value at which the
treasure is to be assessed is the value of the materials plus 1/5th of such value. It is also tated by him that the value of the articles as objects of
archaelogical interest need not enter into account. It was understood that the idols were made by alloy of various materials such as copper, silver,
lead, zinc, etc.
An Expert Committee was constituted by the Government to assess the value of the treasure. The Expert Committee consisted of the following
members:--
I. The nominee of the Director General, Archaelogical Survey of India, New Delhi. Viz., Superintending Archaelogist, Madras Circle.
The Curator for Art & Archaelogy of Government Museum, Madras.
The Registering Officer, Antiquity and Art, Treasure, Chidambaram.
The Under Secretary (Finance), Pondicherry.
The petitioner was informed about the inspection by the Committee and he was present at the time of inspection. The Expert Committee Examined
the treasure in his presence on 22-5-90. One member of the Expert Committee, namely, the Registering Officer, Antiquity and Art Treasure,
Chidambaram, could not be present. The other members assessed the value to be Rs. 23,735-40. Thereafter, the Deputy Collector (Revenue)
passed an order on 15-6-90 fixing the value of the idols at Rs. 23,735-40 and directing payment of the same to the petitioner as finder of the
treasure. He directed the Curator, Government Museum. Pondicherry, to deposit the amount in the Government Treasury to the credit of the
petitioner within one month from the date of the order. The said order is challenged in the latter writ petition.
Two contentions are mainly urged by learned counsel for the petitioner. First, it is contended that, xxxx under the Indian Treasure-Trove Act,
there could be acquisition only by the Government and in the present case, the acquisition is only on behalf of the Government Museum which
cannot be considered to be Government.
There is no substance in this contention. Under Sec. 16 of the treasure-Trove , the Collector may, at any time after making a declaration under
Sec. 9 and before delivering or dividing the treasure as provided in the Act, declare by writing under his hand his intention to acquire on behalf of
the Government the treasure, or any specified portion thereof, by payment. In the present case, the order, which is impugned in the latter writ
petition clearly declares the intention of the Government to acquire the treasure for the Government Museum. It cannot be contended that the
acquisition is not on behalf of the Government. In fact, the order reads as follows:---
.....by virtue of powers conferred under Sec. 16 of Indian Treasure Trove Act, I, C. P. Jayarajan, Collector under Indian Treasure Trove Act,
hereby declare that the treasure be acquired on behalf of the Government.
The next contention is that the assessment of the value of the treasure is erroneous. According to learned counsel, under Sec. 16 of the Act, the
value of the treasure should be fixed on the basis of the value which it will fetch in the open market. According to him, the value of the treasure as
object of archaeological interest should be taken into account. There is no merit in this contention. The language of Section 16 is very clear and it
reads thus: ---
Power to acquire the treasure on behalf of the Government -- The Collector may, at any time after making a declaration u/s 9, and before
delivering or dividing the treasure as herein before provided, declare by writing under his hand his intention to acquire on behalf of the Government
the treasure, or any specified portion thereof, by payment to the persons entitled thereto of a sum equal to the value of the materials of such
treasure or portion, together with one-fifth of such persons;
and thereupon such treasure or portion shall be deemed to be the property of Government, and the money so deposited shall be dealt with, as far
as may be, as if it were such treasure or portion.
It is seen that the terms used in the Section are ""the value of the materials of such treasure or portion"". If the intention of the Legislature is to value
the treasure as such and give compensation at the market value, it need not have used the language which is now found in the Section. Hence, the
compensation has to be fixed only on the basic value of the materials.
Learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the definition of, the word ''material'' in Black''s Law Dictionary as well as in
Ramanatha Iver''s Law Lexicon. None of the definitions will help the petitioner. He placed reliance upon a Division Bench Judgment of the
Bombay High Court, granted in Radhakishan Hakumji v. Balvant Ramji, 1 LR Vol. VII 530. That was a case which arose under Sec. 266 Cl. (c)
CPC as it then stood. Under Sec. 266 Cl. (c) of the CPC attachment in execution of a decree could be made of houses and buildings. The
execution was of
...the materials of houses and other buildings belonging to, and occupied by agriculturists"".
The Division Bench construed the expression to mean that a particular class of houses and buildings were exempted from attachment and which
were not cases of merely loose materials of buildings. The passage relating to exemption reads thus:--
.....In some instances the sites of houses may be held on sufferance, or there may be other means of forcing a tenant to remove or pull down his
hut; the clause saves a decree-holder from the temptation he might be under of putting undue pressure, or getting it put, on the tenant thus situated.
If he cannot attach even the materials, he has no interest in reducing a house to ruin. While it stands he cannot attach it as a house without attaching
the materials of which it is composed.
In this context, the words ""materials of houses"" were construed as the house itself. In fact, the section contained the words ""and other buildings
and thus exempted house itself and not merely materials which were comprised in the house. That judgment is of no help to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondents invites my attention to the definition of the word ''Material'' in the New Webster''s Dictionary, which
reads thus:--
subsequently important., important for the determination of a cause or for the outcome of cause ... the stuff from which a thing is made.. Cloth
..data constituting the basis of a more finished composition, the material for a historical novel...
One other contention was raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the treasure in the present case should be treated as antiquity and
compensation should be paid under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. Antiquity has
been defined in Sec. 2(b) of the said Act as follows:--
""antiquity"" includes :--
(i) any coin, sculpture, manuscript, epigraph or craftsmanship;
(ii)any article, object or thing detached from a building or cave;
(iii)any article, object or thing illustrative of science, art, crafts, literature, religion, customs, morals, or politics in by gone ages,
(iv) any article, object or thing of historical interest, and
(v) any article, object or thing declared by the Central Government by notification in the official gazette to be an antiquity for the purpose of this
Act.
In the present case, there is no material before me to hold that the treasure will fall within the definition of ''antiquity''. No such contention was
raised before the authorities and it cannot be raised in these writ petitions for the first time.
In the circumstances, the authorities are right in fixing the value of the treasure as per the provisions of the Indian Treasure-Torve Act, 1878 on
the basis of the value of the materials and directing payment of compensation for the petitioner. There is no merit in these petitions and they are
dismissed. No costs.
Petitions dismissed.