S. A. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner herein claims that he is the finder of the treasure as also that the treasure was found from the land belonging to him and therefore he has challenged the order of the Collector. Surat and the judgment and order of the Special Secretary dated 29-8-1978 rejecting the claim of the petitioner both on facts as well as by application of secs. 20 and 21 of the Indian Treasure Trove Act 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the petitioner has failed to give notice as required under sec. 4 thereof and if he is the owner and not the finder then for punishment under sec. 21 of the Act. ( 2 ) AS disclosed from the Order dated 13-12-1977 (Annexure A to the petition) of the Collector during the digging of the foundation of the new residential building of the petitioner on 8-2-1977 the Labourers found out silver coins and all of them except a few were given by them to the petitioner. However it appears that neither the petitioner nor any other person gave notice as required under sec. 4 of the Act in respect of the same. The Collector. Surat has stated in his order that Police Sub-Inspector Mahuva received an anonymous application dated 27-2-1977 in respect of this treasure and he therefore started inquiry. During the course of inquiry in labourers were interrogated and they produced before the said Police Sub-Inspector on 25-3-1977 in all 131 silver coins. These labourers had made a statement before the Police Officer that while they were digging the foundation of the residential building of the petitioner the said silver coins were found by them and the same were given by them to the petitioner. On that very day i. e. 25-3-1977 the petitioner also produced old silver coins -1 431 in number before the Police Sub-Inspector. The valuation of the said silver coins totalling to 1 562 was assessed at Rs. 19 0 The said coins bore inscription Mubarak-Surat-24 Hijri in Persian Language. The Archaeological Department of the State of Gujarat had given opinion under sec. 13 of the Act and rule 5 of the rules made under the said Act that the said coins should be acquired by the State Government. However the land where from the said coins were found was not required to be acquired. The Archaeological Department of the State of Gujarat had given opinion under sec. 13 of the Act and rule 5 of the rules made under the said Act that the said coins should be acquired by the State Government. However the land where from the said coins were found was not required to be acquired. ( 3 ) THE Collector Surat published a Notification dated 26-7-1977 as required under sec. 5 of the Act calling upon the interested persons to lodge their claim with relevant evidence on or before 29-11-1977 at 12. 00 noon in his office and to remain present on that day for proving their respective claims. Two persons who were interested prayed for adjournment which was not granted. with which we are not concerned in this petition. One Jawaharlal Dinkerrai Desai of Navsari asked for adjournment enable him to produce the statements of the labourers who had recovered the coins in question alongwith the panchnamas and the relevant papers of the inquiry. This was by a letter dated 24 The said adjournment was not granted. He had not remained present on the appointed day. One Balwantrai Krishnaji Desai through his Advocate and present petitioner Bhaktibhai Gopalji Bhakta made a submission that they were entitled to the Treasure Trove. The claim of Balwantrai was based upon the land which was sold by him to the petitioner. But that claim was ultimately found to be untenable and was dismissed. We are not concerned with the said claim in this petition. The present petitioner however claims ownership of both the pieces of land viz. land which was purchased by him in year 1957 from Balwantrai as well as the land for which he had entered into a contract of sale and had actually received possession from Rasvindra Dahyabhai. The said land bears property Survey No. 217. He has also contended that the treasure was found while digging the foundation of his residential house through his labourers and therefore he is also the finder of the treasure. ( 4 ) IT cannot be disputed that the petitioner was in possession of the land in question and actually the treasure was found while digging the foundation pits of his residential house. It is also not disputed by the authorities that this treasure trove was found from Survey No. 217 which was admittedly in possession of the petitioner at the relevant time. It is also not disputed by the authorities that this treasure trove was found from Survey No. 217 which was admittedly in possession of the petitioner at the relevant time. There was no registered document of sale and ownership is being claimed by the petitioner on the basis of the agreement to purchase as well as his possession and his purported act of making application for transfer of entries before the Panchayat. Original owner viz. Rasvindra Dahyabhai Desai has not appeared nor made any claim regarding the ownership of the land. In the aforesaid circumstances it is difficult to sustain the finding of the Collector that the petitioner cannot claim the treasure or pars of it on the basis of the ownership of the land from where the same was found since for all practical purposes the petitioner was the owner and his ownership right was not disputed by Rasvindra Dahyabhai Desai. If the Collector wanted to dispute the title of the petitioner he ought to have referred the matter to or asked the petitioner to obtain a declaration from the Civil Court. ( 5 ) I shall now examine the findings of the authorities below on the basis whether the petitioner was entitled to make a claim of the treasure trove as an owner of the land and whether his claim as a finder was sustainable under the scheme of the Act and whether the action of the authorities below in forfeiting the treasure under the provisions of secs. 20 and 21 of the Act was justified? ( 6 ) UNDER the scheme of the Act mandatory duty is cast upon a person who finds a treasure to give notice to the Collector in writing as soon as practicable showing the particulars mentioned in clauses (a) to (c) of sec. 4 of the Act. There is a further obligation on the finder of the treasure either to deposit the treasure in the nearest Government Treasury or give to the Collector such security as the Collector thinks fit to produce the treasure at such time and place as he may from time to time require. It is an admitted position that neither the petitioner nor the labourers has/have given any notice under sec. 4 of the Act. It is an admitted position that neither the petitioner nor the labourers has/have given any notice under sec. 4 of the Act. It is also in my opinion amply established that after the investigation was started by the Police Sub-Inspector on an anonymous application dated 27 in labourers deposited 131 silver coins and the present petitioner also on the same day deposited the remaining 1 431 silver coins before the Sub-Inspector as stated above. It is not clear from the decision of the Collector whether the labourers deposited the silver coins first or the petitioner deposited the silver coins first. ( 7 ) THE Collector during his inquiry under sec. 9 of the Act. found that the said silver coins were about 1200 years old and according to him the same were hidden for more than 100 years and nobody having claimed any ownership he declared the said treasure to be ownerless under the provisions of sec. 9 of the Act. He has also come to the conclusion that the labourers were the finder of the treasure and that the petitioner was neither a finder nor the owner of the land who can claim any right over the treasure and rejected his claim on that ground. He has further held that the labourers who were the finder of the treasure and had delivered the same to the petitioner on 8-2-1977 had not declared this treasure till 25-3-1977 and had tried to make attempts to conceal the same. The labourers have also not remained present at the time of hearing. Under the circumstances no question arises to handover the treasure or part of it to the labourers under sec. 11 of the Act. He has further held that even the right to division of the treasure on the basis of the finder is also forfeited to Government under secs. 20 and 21 of the Act and therefore all the silver coins were ordered by him to be forfeited to Government. ( 8 ) THE petitioner and Balwantrai Krishnaji Desai being aggrieved by the said decision of the Collector filed an appeal being no. SS/rd/tta/1/78 and 2 before the Special Secretary Revenue Department which were dismissed by the Special Secretary by his order dated 29-8-1978 (Annexure B to the petition ). Balwantrai Desai has not filed any petition against that order and. SS/rd/tta/1/78 and 2 before the Special Secretary Revenue Department which were dismissed by the Special Secretary by his order dated 29-8-1978 (Annexure B to the petition ). Balwantrai Desai has not filed any petition against that order and. therefore the same has become final so far as he is concerned. ( 9 ) THE present petitioner being aggrieved by the said order of the Special Secretary has filed this petition. Mr. V. M. Trivedi learned Advocate for the petitioner has raised the following contentions: (1) None of the authorities below has found the petitioner to be a finder or abetor of the treasure and therefore sec. 20 or 21 of the Act has no application. (2) Under sec. 12 of the Act the petitioner is the only person who remains claiming part of the treasure on the ground that he was the owner of the land from which the treasure was found and the labourers even if considered to be the finders have not objected to the claim of the petitioner and therefore the Collector was bound to give to the petitioner his part of the treasure as the owner of the land in question. (3) Under the provisions of sec. 5 of the Act the Collector was bound to issue special notice to the owner of the land and if there was any dispute regarding the ownership of the petitioner over the said land such notice having not been given no such objection can be raised now. ( 10 ) BEFORE I deal with the contentions of Mr. Trivedi it will be worthwhile to consider the Scheme of the Act. As stated earlier sec. 4 of the Act makes is mandatory for the finder to give notice to the Collector and deposit the treasure in the nearest Government treasury or give the Collector such security as the Collector thinks fit for the said amount. The Scheme of the Act makes it amply clear that the inquiry starts only on receipt of the notice under sec. 4 of the Act from the finder. ( 11 ) UNDER sec. 5 of the Act on receipt of such notice the Collector has to publish notification to that effect after making inquiry as required under clause (a) and also serve individual notice under clause (b) to the person from whose land the treasure was found. Thereafter the Collector has to decide under sec. ( 11 ) UNDER sec. 5 of the Act on receipt of such notice the Collector has to publish notification to that effect after making inquiry as required under clause (a) and also serve individual notice under clause (b) to the person from whose land the treasure was found. Thereafter the Collector has to decide under sec. 9 of the Act whether there is owner who claims the treasure to be his. If the treasure is found to be hidden for a period exceeding 100 years from the date it was found the Collector can declare the said treasure to be ownerless. Then according to the subsequent provisions of the Act the treasure is to be divided between the finder and the owner of the land. However there is no provision in the Act under which Government can claim the said treasure if the same is found from a private property. ( 12 ) MR. Trivedi for the petitioner has not disputed the finding of the Collector that the treasure is ownerless. He however submits that in the instant case the Collector has started inquiry without waiting for the notice as required under sec. 4 of the Act since the petitioner himself has deposited the treasure before the Police Officer and the Police Officer in turn has conveyed the said fact of the deposit of the treasure by the petitioner and the labourers to the Collector it can be said that the Collector got notice through the petitioner. In my opinion this argument is a bit far-fetched. However one thing is certain that neither the Collector nor the Special Secretary has accepted the petitioner as a finder. The decision of the Collector is very specific on this point. The Collector however has not given any definite finding in respect of the claim of the petitioner as the owner of the land. ( 13 ) THE Special Secretary has in his order observed as under:"as to the first point the facts of the case indicate that the appellant (petitioner) was not the finder of the coins but the labourers who were excavating the foundation in his own land found these coins on the eastern side of the building of the appellant. . . . . . . As appellant Shri Bhaktibhai Gopalji Bhakta has not given a notice to the Collector under sec. . . . . . . As appellant Shri Bhaktibhai Gopalji Bhakta has not given a notice to the Collector under sec. 4 of the Act he cannot be deemed to be the finder of the treasure even though the P. S. I. Mahuva on an anonymous application had get these coins from the appellant as well as his labourers. Therefore appellant Shri Bhaktibhai Gopalji Bhakta cannot be given benefits of being the finder of the treasure". THEN in the last paragraph the Special Secretary has observed:". . . . IN fact in this case the finders of the treasure were labourers who have not claimed under the respective provisions of the Act. Therefore there was nothing wrong in the order of the Collector who has taking into account the provisions of secs. 21 and 22 of the Act forfeited the treasure to the State". THESE observations in my opinion are totally confusing and they cannot be said to be a finding at all when the Special Secretary is dealing with a very important right of the party who has found the treasure. ( 14 ) THE next contention of Mr. Trivedi is that under sec. 12 of the Act the Collector was bound to consider the petitioner as an owner since his claim has not been disputed by anybody and the Collector himself could not dispute the same. Said sec. 12 of the Act reads:"12 When a declaration has been made as aforesaid in respect of any treasure and only one person other than the finder of such treasure has so appeared and claimed the claim of such person is not disputed by the finder the collector shall proceed to divide the treasure between the finder and the person so claiming according to the following rule. . . "now it is an admitted position that even if the labourers are accepted as finders they have not disputed the claim of the petitioner that the land was in possession of the petitioner and the treasure was found while digging the foundation of the house of the petitioner. Nobody else has come forward to claim ownership of the land except Balwantrai Desai whose claim is rejected. There is no dispute regarding the ownership of the land of the petitioner though saledeed is not produced by the petitioner. Nobody else has come forward to claim ownership of the land except Balwantrai Desai whose claim is rejected. There is no dispute regarding the ownership of the land of the petitioner though saledeed is not produced by the petitioner. If any other person was claiming the ownership of the land in question he ought to have appeared before the Collector on the publication of the notification by the Collector. If the Collector had any doubt regarding the ownership or if he considered any other person as owner of the said land then under clause (b) of sec. 5 of the Act he was bound to serve on such person a special notice in writing to that effect. He has not served any notice to Rasvindra Dahyabhai Desai or any other person. Under these circumstances it is not possible to accept the finding of the Collector or the Special Secretary so far as possession and/or ownership of the land in question is concerned. It the Collector had still any doubt regarding the ownership of the said land he could have asked the parties to go to a Civil Court for determination of their rights by relying upon the provisions of sec. 13 of the Act. In the instant case so far as Survey No. 217 is concerned only the petitioner has claimed ownership thereof and no other person has claimed it. In the circumstances the Collector was bound to consider the petitioner as the owner of the land in question from where the treasure was found. I therefore hold that the petitioner is entitled to onefourth of the treasure as provided in sec. 12 of the Act. ( 15 ) SO far as the claim of the petitioner in respect of his right as a finder is concerned it cannot be entertained because even if he is held to be a finder he has not given any notice under sec. 4 of the Act to the Collector and therefore that right of his will be forfeited to the Government under sec. 20 of the Act. In that view of the matter no purpose will be served to reverse that finding of the authorities below. ( 16 ) IN the results the petition is partly allowed. 4 of the Act to the Collector and therefore that right of his will be forfeited to the Government under sec. 20 of the Act. In that view of the matter no purpose will be served to reverse that finding of the authorities below. ( 16 ) IN the results the petition is partly allowed. The decisions of the authorities below are quashed and set aside and they are directed to give onefourth of the treasure to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 6 per cent. from the date of the judgment of the Collector till payment. The Collector is directed to make the payment to the petitioner as aforesaid within 8 weeks from the date of the receipt of the writ of this Court. Rule is modified to that extent. There shall be no order as to costs in this petition. Petition partly allowed. .