Km. Sapna Basundhara and Anr v. Collector/District Magistrate, Dehradun

Judgment

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 Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1087 of 2013, Km. Sapna @ Basundhara & another Vs Collector/District Magistrate Dehradun Ashish Naithani J.

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 Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1087 of 2013, Km. Sapna @ Basundhara & another Vs Collector/District Magistrate Dehradun Ashish Naithani J. 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 directions of this Court to decide the matter on the merits.

10. Learned counsel also contended that the Collector failed to consider crucial documentary evidence, including the registered sale deed, the revenue records showing possession and ownership, and the legal opinion of the learned District Government Counsel.

11. It was submitted that the Collector’s reasoning was based entirely on municipal records, which, by their very nature, cannot override title documents. The Petitioners, therefore, sought quashing of both the impugned orders, with further direction to the State to restore possession of the property.

12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent- State opposed the writ petition and supported the impugned orders. It was submitted that according to the records of the Nagar Nigam, Dehradun, the ownership of the property in question continued to stand in the name of one Shri B.N. Khosla from the year 1958–63 till 2004. 3 Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1087 of 2013, Km. Sapna @ Basundhara & another Vs Collector/District Magistrate Dehradun Ashish Naithani J.

13. At no point was the name of Late Shri Pushpendra Singh Duggal ever recorded as the owner in the municipal registers. In the absence of any corroborative entries, the mere production of a registered sale deed by the Petitioners cannot be considered conclusive of title.

14. It was further contended that the Petitioners have not produced any succession certificate or any probate from a competent civil court, which is a legal requirement to establish heirship in such matters. Without such adjudication, their claim to the property remains unsubstantiated. It was pointed out that there were multiple claimants to the estate of the deceased. In the absence of a final determination by a civil forum, the Collector could not have proceeded based on the Petitioners’ assertions alone.

15. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order dated

28.12.2011 was passed in compliance with the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1779 (M/S) of 2011. The Collector had duly considered the available records, the report of subordinate officials, and the submissions made by the parties. It was only after recording satisfaction on the absence of proof of succession or mutation in favour of the Petitioners that the property was held to have lawfully vested in the State under Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act. It was emphasized that the escheat provision, as applicable, did not require court adjudication, and that the Collector had acted well within his jurisdiction.

16. It was lastly submitted that the Petitioners still have an efficacious remedy available to them under civil law, and that the proper course for them would be to institute a civil suit for declaration of title and possession. Invocation of the writ jurisdiction in such factually disputed matters was, according to the Respondent, premature 4 Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1087 of 2013, Km. Sapna @ Basundhara & another Vs Collector/District Magistrate Dehradun Ashish Naithani J. and misconceived. It was therefore prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

18. Heard learned Counsel for the Parties and Perused the records. This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the pleadings, the documentary record placed before it, and submissions advanced by learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent–State. The matter concerns the applicability of the doctrine of escheat under Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the scope of administrative authority in declaring immovable property as having devolved upon the State in the absence of lawful heirs.

19. The Petitioners contend, and rightly so, that both the order dated

23.11.2007 and the subsequent rejection dated 28.12.2011 suffer from grave legal infirmities. The initial order was passed without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners, who, as daughters of the registered purchaser, had a prima facie claim to the estate. The principles of natural justice are not empty formalities but form the bedrock of any administrative or quasi-judicial action that affects civil rights.

20. The doctrine of audi alteram partem is not a matter of procedural etiquette;it is a constitutional guarantee embedded in Article 14 of the Constitution and is enforceable against the State in all actions involving deprivation or extinguishment of property rights.

21. It further emerges from the record that the Petitioners had produced the registered sale deed dated 22.02.1990, corroborative entries from revenue records, and even the written opinion of the learned District Government Counsel, who had opined that the declaration of escheat appeared to be erroneous and that rectification was warranted. 5 Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1087 of 2013, Km. Sapna @ Basundhara & another Vs Collector/District Magistrate Dehradun Ashish Naithani J.

22. The Collector, however, rejected the Petitioners’ claim primarily on the ground that the name of Late Shri Pushpendra Singh did not appear in municipal ownership records, and the Petitioners had failed to produce a succession certificate or any order from a civil court affirming their status as legal heirs.

23. Such a line of reasoning cannot be sustained. Firstly, the failure to mutate or update municipal records cannot override a duly registered instrument of transfer. The law in this regard is settled that mutation entries are not title documents and do not, in themselves, confer or extinguish ownership.

24. Secondly, it is well-settled that a succession certificate under Part X of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, particularly Sections 370 to 381, is not the exclusive mode of establishing inheritance or heirship. A succession certificate merely facilitates the collection of debts and securities and does not confer title or adjudicate final rights of succession. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma v. Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai, (2000) 6 SCC 301, has categorically held that a succession certificate does not conclude or determine questions of title or beneficial ownership of the estate and is only a summary procedure for enabling the claimant to collect debts due to the deceased.

25. Therefore, in the absence of a succession certificate, inheritance rights may still be established through admissible oral and documentary evidence, especially where there is no dispute inter se among the legal heirs. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, permits proof of such relationships and entitlements by way of relevant entries in public documents, registered family settlements, admissions, witness testimonies, and other cogent materials. Thus, the absence of a 6 Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1087 of 2013, Km. Sapna @ Basundhara & another Vs Collector/District Magistrate Dehradun Ashish Naithani J. succession certificate is not fatal to the claim of heirship in appropriate civil or testamentary proceedings.

26. The State’s invocation of Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act must be seen in light of the extraordinary nature of the power. Section 29 provides for escheat to the Government only upon the failure of all legal heirs qualified to succeed under the Act. Such failure must be demonstrably established after full inquiry. The State, acting through the District Magistrate, cannot presume the absence of heirs, especially when claimants have come forward with registered documents and affidavits asserting inheritance.

27. The Collector’s approach, in this Court’s considered view, was procedurally flawed and substantively incomplete. The rejection order dated 28.12.2011, passed ostensibly in compliance with the earlier writ direction, does not disclose any independent application of mind.

28. It fails to engage with the evidence produced by the Petitioners, particularly the sale deed and the DGC’s opinion. The conclusion appears to rest solely on the absence of a mutation or succession certificate, both of which, while relevant, are not conclusive in law. The Collector was required to make a reasoned evaluation of the documents and, if doubt persisted, refer the matter for civil adjudication rather than summarily extinguish claimed ownership.

29. This Court must therefore reiterate the constitutional position that the power of the State to appropriate private property by way of escheat must be sparingly exercised and only upon rigorous satisfaction that no lawful heir exists. The administrative satisfaction required under Section 29 is not a subjective one, but a legally reviewable determination that must withstand judicial scrutiny. The Collector’s conclusion in this case fails that standard. ORDER 7 Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1087 of 2013, Km. Sapna @ Basundhara & another Vs Collector/District Magistrate Dehradun Ashish Naithani J. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 23.11.2007 and 28.12.2011 passed by District Magistrate, Dehradun, are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the District Magistrate, Dehradun, who shall reconsider the claim of the Petitioners to Property No. 18, Acharya Narendra Dev Marg (Old No. 6, Municipal Road), Dehradun, afresh in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. (Ashish Naithani J.) Dated:13.08.2025 NR/ 8 Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1087 of 2013, Km. Sapna @ Basundhara & another Vs Collector/District Magistrate Dehradun Ashish Naithani J.