Smt. Sundi vs State

Jagat Narayan, J.C.

The facts giving rise to this application are these: One Smt. Dasiya was the mistress of one Kashi Prasad, who predeceased her. On the death of Smt. Dasiya her movable property was seized by the police under S. 25, Police Act as unclaimed property on the ground that she had died heirless and a report was made to the Additional District Magistrate. Smt. Sundi, the present applicant claimed the property before the latter, but her claim was rejected. She has filed the present application against that order.

Section 25, Police Act makes it the duty of every police officer to take charge of unclaimed property and to furnish an inventory thereof to the Magistrate of the District. Section 26 of the same Act requires the District Magistrate to issue a proclamation specifying the articles which have been seized as unclaimed property and requiring any person who has any claim thereto to appear and establish his right to the same within 6 months from the date of such proclamation.

If any claimant appears and the Magistrate is satisfied as to his claim the property is handed over to him. If, however, the Magistrate is not satisfied as to his claim the property is handed over to him. If, however, the Magistrate is not satisfied that any person has a lawful claim to the property he orders the sale of the property and the proceeds are placed at the disposal of the State Government under S. 27, Police Act. The proceedings under the Police Act are of a summary nature. Any person considering himself aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate may establish his right to the property in the Civil Court.

Where a Magistrate decides a claim under S. 26, Police Act he is undoubtedly expected to act judicially. "A true judicial decision presupposes an existing dispute between two or more parties and involves four requisites: (1) The presentation (not necessarily orally; of their case by the parties to the dispute; (2) if the dispute between them is a question of fact, the ascertainment of the fact by means of evidence adduced by the parties to the dispute and often with the assistance of argument by or on behalf of the parties on the evidence, (3) if the dispute between them is question of law, the submission of legal argument by the parties; and (4) a decision which disposes of the Whole matter by a finding upon the facts in dispute and an application of the law to the facts so found, including, where required, a ruling upon any disputed question of law". (Report of the Ministers'' Powers Committee C. M. D. 4060). A revision application under S. 439, Cr. P. C. lies against the order.

Rules framed by the Nagpur High Court for the disposal of intestate movable property have been adopted in this State. They run as follows:

If any property dealt with under the above rules Is at any time before sale found to have been last in the possession of a person who dies intestate, its final disposal shall be governed, as far as may be, by the following rules.

The death of a person dying intestate leaving movable property shall be reported, in form C annexed, to the District Magistrate by the officer in charge of the police station in which the death takes place; provided that, if a claimant appears to claim the property by reason of such relationship as prima facie constitutes him heir to the deceased, and if the fact of such relationship is indisputable, no report need be submitted.

(1) The District Magistrate shall without delay forward the report in form C to the District Judge having jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is conferred on the District Judge by Ss. 192, 193, 218, 219, 253, 254 and 269, Indian Succession Act (39 of 1925); by S. 54, Administrator-General''s Act (3 of 1913); and by Ss. 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Bengal Regulation 5 of 1799.

(2) If the District Judge having jurisdiction in the matter finds that he has powers to pass orders for the disposal of the property he shall pass such orders forthwith.

(3) If he finds that he has no power to pass such orders he shall inform the District Magistrate accordingly as soon as possible, and the District Magistrate shall then dispose of the property under the rules in the first part above as unclaimed property.

On behalf of the applicant it is urged that the District Magistrate should not have himself decided the claim but should have forwarded it to the District Judge. There is no doubt that the rules enjoin upon him that he should first make a report in form C to the District Judge having jurisdiction and it is only if the District Judge finds that he has no power to pass orders that the District Magistrate can decide the claim.

The District Judge has power to pass orders only if an application under the Indian Succession Act, or the Administrator-General''s Act has been moved before him. In the present case it is not alleged that any such application was made. So that District Judge would have returned the papers to the District Magistrate and the latter would have decided the claim even if the rules had been complied with.

Next it was argued that the District Magistrate should have issued a proclamation as required by S. 26, Police Act. That is true and the District Magistrate committed another irregularity. But the applicant cannot consider herself aggrieved by this irregularity as she herself appeared before the District Magistrate and preferred a claim.

The decision of the District Magistrate, however, is not such as to warrant interference in revision. If the applicant feels aggrieved it is open to her to establish her claim to the property of the deceased in the Civil Court. The application is accordingly rejected.