THE INDIAN TIMBER AND PLYWOOD CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 240 · Decided: 31-03-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

T 
A 
THE INDIAN TIMBER AND PLYWOOD 
CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. 
v. 
THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. 
B 
MARCH 31, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH, J.S. VERMA AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.) 
Kera/a Escheats and Forfeitures Act, 1964: Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 
11. 
c 
Land-Abandonment of by owner-Escheat Proceedings-Collector's 
order escheating lands in favour of State-No appeal or suit against 
Collector's order-Order attaining finality-Suit for possession of land by 
State-Maintainability of 
D 
The Respondent-State filed a suit against the appellants for recovery 
of possession of suit lands on the ground that they were in unlawful 
possesssion of the same. The case of the State was that consequent to the 
abandonment of the disputed lands by its owner, escheat proceedings in 
~' 
respect of the said lands were initiated under the Kerala Escheats and 
E Forfeiture Act, 1964 wherein the Collector passed an order dated 
24.12.1968 holding that the suit lands had escheated and belonged to the 
State and that since the appellants filed neither an appeal under section 
7 nor any suit under section 11 against the Collector's order it became 
final and therefore the appellants were in unauthorised possession of suit 
lands. 
F 
,_ 
The appellants resisted the suit claiming title to the suit lands and 
challenged the escheat proceedings contendings that the identity of the suit 
lands did not match with those acquired. They also stated that they had 
challenged the validity of the escheat order in writ petitions and by an 
G order dated 24.12.70 passed by the High Court all questions regarding the 
validity of escheat proceedings and the order made therein were left open 
"to the extent permissible in law" for being raised in the pending suit filed 
by the State. 
-· 
The Trial Court rejected the State's claim and dismissed the suit. 
H On State's appeal the High Court reversed the decree of the Trial Court 
240 
' ' 
\ 
INDIAN TIMBER AND PLYWOOD CORPN. v. STATE [VERMA, J.] 241 
and decreed the suit holding that (i) the plaint schedule properties were A 
properly identified; and (ii) since the State has proved that the owner had 
left the property for good without any intention of asserting title to the 
said property at any time the escheat proceedings were justified. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant B 
that (i) the High Court was not justified in reversing the Trial Court's 
decree; and (ii) that in view of the High Court's order dated 24.12.1970 all 
questions raised in writ petitions remained open to them. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The scheme of the Kerala Escheats and Forfeitures Act, 
1964 is that the decision of the Collector made under Section 6 of the Act 
is final subject to the decision in appeal under Section 7 or a snit under 
Section 11 filed within the prescribed period. The decision of the Collector 
c 
was made in the present case after investigating into the claim of the D 
defendants made under Section 5 of the Act and the defendants did not 
prefer any appeal under Section 7 or file a civil suit under Section 11 of 
the Act to challenge the Collector's decision against it. The escheat order 
having attained finality, the suit filed by the State of Kerala for recovery 
of possession on that basis had to succeed for that reason alone. 
[245-E-G; 246-G] 
1.2. There is also no misreading of evidence or any other inifirmity 
in the discussion of evidence made by the High Court before reaching the 
conclusion relating to identity of the suit lands. [244-C] 
2. The observation made by the High. Court while dismissing the 
appellants' writ petitions are of no avail to circumvent the effect of finality 
attaching to the decision of the Collector made under Section 6 of the Act, 
on account of the failure of the appellants to assail the sa.me on merits in 
accordance with Sections 7 and 11 of the Act. The only challenge in the 
writ petitions was to the continuance of the escheat proceedings under the 
1964 Act when the proceedings had been initiated under the 1817 Regula-
!ions, and not to merits of the decision of the Collector. Thus in the snit 
filed by the State the correctness on merits of the collector's decision could 
not be gone into, which is the challenge now made and not any chall~nge 
E 
F 
G 
on the ground on which the writ petitions were filed. [246-D-G] 
H 
242 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6120 of 
19
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.