_edited_edited.jpg)
Case Name - S. Iqbal Singh Chadha vs Collector, Hoshiarpur And Anr.
Case Citation - AIR 1956 P H 235
Parties Involved -
Petitioner - S. Iqbal Singh Chadha
Respondent -
Collector
Hoshiarpur And Anr.
Relevant Acts and Sections -
Facts of the Case
Mine cups of gold weighing about 192 tolas with a value of about Rs. 15,000/- were uncovered from below the earth around 25-6-1954 while the link road was being leveled. The police took these cups under their possession on 29-6-1954. The Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, through a letter dated 3-7-1954, instructed the Resident Magistrate, Una, to give the possession of these cups to the Manager, Court of Wards, Una Estate, for depositing it safely into the Una Estate treasury as they were recovered from the land belonging to them and must be considered as the property of the Court of Wards.
It was said here that the property of Bedi Devindar Singh came under the Court of Wards as per section 13 of the Court of Wards Act, and his son Bedi Madhusudan Singh who is the Manager of the Property. The Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, is exercising his powers in the Court of Wrads. The Manager, Court of Wrads, the son of the Ward, received the cups on 6-7-1954 under the instructions of the Collector and was properly placed in the treasury.
On 13-11-1954, a notice was issued under Section 5 of the Indian Treasure-trove Act, 1878, stating that Iqbal Singh was the recipient of the gold cups. Accordingly, notification claims were invited for filing 29-3-1956. Only Iqbal Singh and the Court of Wards are in this area. Iqbal Singh said that as a person who acquired wealth while the Court of Wards was claiming the property because the cups belonged to the Bedi family and were found in their property.
The Court of Wards also denied that Iqbal Singh was the one who discovered the gold cups. The Collector then commenced proceedings under Section 7 of the Treasure-trove Act suspended by an injunction
that Iqbal Singh has not been declared as the finder of the gold cups
that the actual finder has lost their rights on the cups under Section 6 of the Act
the cups belong to the Bedi family and are found on their property.
Based on these findings, he ordered the gold cups to enter the Court of Wards.
Issue of the Case
Will the owner of the property decide the keeper of the treasure?
Arguments of the Petitioner
The petitioner's complaint is that he has not been given sufficient opportunity to present his case before the Collector. Shri Faqir Chand Mital argued on the part of the client that the Collector appeared to have voted for Iqbal Singh as the property of the Bedi family that came into his possession. It is also requested that mistakes be identified in the face of the sentencing process and in the proceedings. The accepted process and the mistakes made in sequence resulted in the apparent injustice of the petitioner.
Arguments of the Respondent
The Collector has also found that the treasure was recovered from a place belonging to the Bedi family and hence belonged to them.
Judgment of the Case
The assets of Bedi Devin-dar Singh are available from the Deputy Commissioner, Ho shiarpur. Bedi Madhusudan Singh is the son of the Ward and works as a Manager under the Deputy Commissioner.
The result of the Impugned order is that the treasure is now in the possession of the Deputy Commissioner. The Manager, the Court of Wards, as the son of the Ward, had a keen interest in the outcome of the investigation that the Educator had conducted under Section 7 of the Treasure Trove Act. His Manager was under obligation to prove his claim. For this reason, he had to present evidence before the Collector, acting under the Treasure Trove Act, on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner under the Court of Wards Act.
Therefore, the Collector under the Treasure-trove Act had to determine the validity of his claim as the Deputy Commissioner on behalf of the Ward Court. In such cases, it could easily be said that the Collector was a judge in his case. Shri Tek Chand, who was the responding counselor, urged that the Deputy Commissioner should perform various functions under different Rules. For this reason, the inaccuracy of a given decision should not be blamed.
In the current situation, the continuation of the process shows that the applicant has not been given sufficient opportunity to present his case before the Collector. The decision against the applicant was accepted on the basis of evidence, not evidence against him or the documents that were not legally valid.
For a more simple understanding, refer to the article " What If You Find Buried Treasure Somewhere In India?" by clicking the button below.
留言