KUTCHI LAL RAMESHWAR ASHRAM TRUST EVAM ANNA KSHETRA TRUST THR. VELJI DEVSHI PATEL versus COLLECTOR, HARIDWAR & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 9 S.C.R. 766 · Decided: 22-09-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 9 S.C.R. 766 
A 
KUTCH! LAL RAMESHWAR ASHRAM TRUST EVAM 
ANNA KSHETRA TRUST THR. VELJI DEVSHI PATEL 
B 
v. 
COLLECTOR, HARIDWAR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3878 of 2009) 
SEPTEMBER 22, 2017 
[N.V. RAMANA AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] 
Jurisdiction: 
c 
· Jurisdiction of Collector - In adjudicating that the intestate 
property in question would vest in the State Government ar a result 
of failure of heirs within meaning of s. 29 of Hindu Succession Act 
- Held: In the process of determining the issues u!s. 29, the Collector 
adjudicated upon various disputed factual matters - A civil court 
has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon all matters involving civil 
D disputes, except where the jurisdiction of the court is taken away -
Such a matter could not have been adjudicated upon by the Collector 
by assuming a jurisdiction which is not conferred upon him by law 
- Allowing administrative Authorities to adjudicate upon matters of 
title involving civil disputes would be destructive of the rule of law 
E - Adjudication of titles must follow recourse to the ordinary civil 
jurisdiction of a court of competent jurisdiction uls. 9 of CPC -
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 9 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 
-s. 29. 
Constitution of India: 
F 
Art. 142 - Jurisdiction under - Scope of- Held: Constitutional 
jurisdiction conferred upon Supreme Court has its basis in the 
advancement of justice - Power of the court to render justice should 
not be constricted by a narrow approach to its mandate - The 
principle behind Art. 142 is to render complete justice - When court 
G initially issues limited notice and subsequently grants leave, scope 
of appeal does not raise a matter of jurisdiction, but of judicial 
discretion __: Therefore the guiding principle would be advancement 
of substantial justice - At the time of final hearing of appeal, 
Supreme Court would not be inhibited by any order made at the 
time of issuing of notice and the controversy in its entire perspective 
H 
would be open for consideration - Practice and Procedure. 
766 
KUTCIDLAL RAMESHWARASHRAM TRUST EVAM 
767 
ANNA KSHETRA TRUST v. COLLECTOR, HARIDWAR 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956: , 
A 
s. 29 - Scope of - Held: s. 29 embodies a principle, but does 
not provide a procedural mechanism for adjudication upon disputed 
questions - Section 29 embodies prinCiple of escheat and comes 
into operatiOn only on there being afaUure of heirs. 
Doctrines/Principles: 
Doctrine of escheat - Discussed. 
Evidence: 
B 
Onus - in case of escheat - Held: When a question of escheat 
arises, the onus to establish the case rests heavily on the person 
C 
who asserts the absence of an heir qualified to succeed to the estate 
of the individual who died intestate. 
Administrators - General Act, 1963: 
Powers of Administrator General - Ambit of - Held: 
D 
Administrator General is conferred with duties and obligations to 
secure and safeguard administration of estate left behind by a 
deceased individual - Legislation has not reserved a judicial power 
to him - Such adjudicatory functions are entrusted to the High Court. 
Pursuant to a complaint, the Collector (Respondent No. l) 
held that the property in possession of the appellant-Trust vested 
in' the State Goveritmeqt uls. 29 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 
as there existed no heir to succeed to the property following· the 
death of the owner ('M')of the property. Order of the Collector 
was challenged by the Trust, filing writ petition before High Court. 
Writ petition was dismissed upholding the order of the Collector. 
In Special Leave Petition against the order of High Court, 
this Court issued notice limited to the question as to whether 
the Collector had power to p~ss an order u/s.' 29 in view of 
provisions of Administrators - General Act, 1963. Thereafter leave 
was granted. 
Respondent-State inter alia contended that since the notice 
was confined to a limited question, subsequent grant of leave 
also should be confined to that very issue and scope of 
controversy should not. be expanded to all the issues raised in 
the appeal. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
.J 
768 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The constitutional jurisdiction which is conferred 
upon Supreme Court has its basis in the advancement of justice. 
The power of the Court to render justice should not be 
constricted by, a narrow approach to its mandate. Article 142 of 
B the Constitution embodies the fundamental principle 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.