Judgment R.N. Shay, J. By this Court eight writ applications challenging a common order are being disposed of. 2. The prayer in those applications for a grant of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the third respondent (Deputy Commissioner Giridih) dated 12.3.1993 in case no. 41 of 1986 in the circumstances started hereinafter. 3. In the Giridih District Gazettee extraordinary dated 28th August 1986 of the following notification was publish (Annexure – 4): On bing satisfied with the report D.C.L.R. Sadar Giridih and other relevant papers that Shri Birendra Kumar Biswas, son of Late Brijendra Kumar of New Barganda, P.O. Giridih town died on 8.4.1986 without any legal claimant and as under Rule 356 of the Miscellaneous Rules of the Board of Revenue Bihar all property real or personal life by Shri Birendra Kumar Biswas belongs to the State. In exercise of the power conferred on me under Rule 358 of the Miscellaneous Rules of the Board of Revenue Section 8 Regulation XIX of 1810. I, U.K. Sinha, I.A.S. Deputy Commissioner, Giridih being the ex-officer in local agent of the Board of Revenue order for taking immediate possession of the moveable and immovable property left by Shri Birendra Kumar Biswas on behalf and the Government an direct M.D., D.R.D.A. Giridih to take possession of this property as mentioned blow and to report compliance. The property not found in possession of deceased Shri Biswas should not be occupied. 1. 0.7 dec., Thana No. 95 ward no. 1, Holding no. 213 Maktpur, Giridih. 2. 8.1/4 dec. Thana No. 95 ward no. 1, Holding no. 213Thana no. 306 Maktpur Giridih. 3. 0.9 Kattha Thana No. 95 ward no. 1, Holding no. 213Thana no. 905 Maktpur Giridih. 4. 0.9 Kattha Thana No. 95 ward no. 1, Holding no. 213Thoka no. 306 Maktpur Giridih. 5. One Bigha 4 Kathas, Thana No. 95 ward no. 1, Holding no. 213 Thoka no. 306 Maktpur Giridih. 6. 4 Kathas, Ward no. 1, Holding no. 95, Makatpur, Giridih. 7. 5 Kathas, 4 Chatok, ward no. 1, Holding no. 205, Thana no. 95 Thoka no. 417, Makstupr, Giridih. 8. 2 Katta, ward no. Thoka no. 407 Makatpur, Giridih. 3. A series of objection were filed by the several person including the petitioners before the third respondent to revoke and recall the notification for the reason stated in the objections. 7. 5 Kathas, 4 Chatok, ward no. 1, Holding no. 205, Thana no. 95 Thoka no. 417, Makstupr, Giridih. 8. 2 Katta, ward no. Thoka no. 407 Makatpur, Giridih. 3. A series of objection were filed by the several person including the petitioners before the third respondent to revoke and recall the notification for the reason stated in the objections. As objections were common by way of illustration the objection filed by Alakh Narain Darad (CWJC no. 2914/93(R)) may be considered. The objection of this petitioner was he was a bonafide purchaser of land under holding no. 205 Thana no. 95 of Makatpur Giridih by the virtue of registered sale deed executed by Late B.K. Biswas was the owner of the petitioners mentioned in the gazette notification whose property of the State by low of escheat. It was further asserted in the objection that the objector petitioner had sold to different persons and the remaining land as in his possession. 4. More or less similar claim were made by other objectors. 5. Third respondent by a common order (annexure 6) rejected the objection inter alia on the following grounds :- (a) The properties subject matter of the proceeding had all along being in possession of Late Biswas. (b) The sale deeds conceited by the deceased were without consideration. Hence no title passed to the purchasers. The transactions were void under the transfer of property Act. (c) The mutation order obtained by the purchaser were obtained by the purchaser were obtained with fraud and hence not binding on the State. 6. The question for consideration is whether in purposed exercise of power made Rule 356 of the Board Miscellaneous Rules the property could be declared escheat property. The answer must be in the negative. It is indeed surprising that the third respondent was not property advised by the Government pleader. It is only a civil court who can declare a property escheat property the State must seek a declaration to this affect by instating a civil suit before a court of competent jurisdiction. The Deputy Commissioner has no authority to usurp the jurisdiction of court has been done in this case. 7. The right of crown to take by escheat the property of a Hindu was finally established in the case of Collector of Masulipatom Vs. Cavely Venkatta Narainpah (1995-61) 8 MIA 519. 8. In Girdhari Lal Roy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner has no authority to usurp the jurisdiction of court has been done in this case. 7. The right of crown to take by escheat the property of a Hindu was finally established in the case of Collector of Masulipatom Vs. Cavely Venkatta Narainpah (1995-61) 8 MIA 519. 8. In Girdhari Lal Roy Vs. Bangal Government 12 MIA 448 it was held by the Judicial Committee that in an ordinary suit in the nature of ejectment the Government was in possession of plaintiff and it could recover only on the strength of its own title. This case was followed by Madras High Court in Secretary of State Vs. Surya Karantha (AIR 1916 Madras 209) where it was held that in a suit by the Government of ejectment of defendant on the ground of escheat, it lies upon the Crown to prove at least prima facie the essential facts. 9. In Secretary of State Vs. Kanhaialal (AIR 1941 Oudh 337) suit was instated by Deputy Commissioner for certain landed property on the allegation that Sunder Lal who was owner of those properties died issueless in 1181, leaving a window who obtained possession of all properties. During her lifetime she made several mortgages and sales of property in her possession in favour of various transfers. The Deputy Commissioner challenged the various transfers as without any authority. The Government claimed ejectment of transfers on the ground of escheat. The Oudh court following the decisions of judicial Committee and Oadh Court (Supra) dismissed the suit. 10. According to Act, 296 of Constitution of India any property in the territory of India which, if the Constitution had not come into force would have accrued to his Majesty by escheat or lapse or as bon vasatia for went of rightful owner shall vest in the State or the union according to the territorial situation of the property. Article 296 is subject to Article 300 of Constitution of India which enable the Union of the State to institute legal proceeding. 11. In State of Bihar vs. Radha Krishna Singh ( AIR 1983 SC 684 ) several persons come forward with rival claim being the hairs to the property left by Maharaja Harnedra Kishore Singh of Bettish who died issueless. Several suits were filed by the different claimants for declaration that they were legal heirs of the Mharaja. 11. In State of Bihar vs. Radha Krishna Singh ( AIR 1983 SC 684 ) several persons come forward with rival claim being the hairs to the property left by Maharaja Harnedra Kishore Singh of Bettish who died issueless. Several suits were filed by the different claimants for declaration that they were legal heirs of the Mharaja. The trial court held that none of the claimants had been able to establish their claims. The trial court however accepted the case of escheat put forwarded by the State of Bihar. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the trial court. In paragraph 269 to 272 of the report Fazal Ali, J observed as followed :- “269. Before closing the colorful chapter of this his to rical case we would no like to deal with the last point which remains to be considered and that is the question of escheat. So far as this question is concerned M.M. Prasad, J. has right pointed out that as the State of Bihar did not enter the arena as plaintiff to claim the properties by pleading that the late Maharaja had left no help at all and hence the property should vast in the State of Bihar is would be difficult to hold that merely in the even of the failure if the plaintiffs case the properties would vast in the State of Bihar. 270. It is well settled that when a claim of escheat is put forward by the Government onus lies having on the appellant to prove the absence of any heir of the respondent any were in the word. Normally the court forward on the escheat being taken by the escheat unless the essential conditions for escheat are fully and completely satisfied. Further before the plea of escheat can be entertained there must be a public notice giving by the government so that if there any claimant any where in the country or for the matter in the world he may come forward to contest the claim of the State. In the instant case the Stases of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh merely satisfied themselves by appearing to oppose the claims of the Plaintiffs-respondents. In the instant case the Stases of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh merely satisfied themselves by appearing to oppose the claims of the Plaintiffs-respondents. Even if they succeed in showing that the plaintiff were not the nearest reversionary of the late Maharaja it dose note follow as a logical corollary that the failure of the plaintiffs claim would lead to the irresistible inference that there is no other hair to could at any time come forward to claim the petitioner. 271. The trial court was wrong in accepting the case of escheat put forward by the appellants without at all consideration governing the vesting of properties in the State by escheat. M.M. Prasad, J. had explained the position very clearly in his judgment and has concluded thus ; “In view however of went I have held that the finding declaration of the property having vested in the State of Bihar itself can not be sustained the question of making a declaration in favour of the State of Uttar Pradesh regarding the property in suit in that State dose not arise.” 272. We entirely agree with the opinion expressed by the learned Judge on this question. However we would like to leave this question open without deciding it one way or the other because for the purpose of deciding the appeal it is not at all necessary to go into the question of escheat in a property constituted action. The plea taken by both the sides on the question of escheat is there for left undecided.” 12. Chapter 20 of the Bihar Boards Miscellaneous Rule 1958 lays down general rules in respect of escheat. Rule 357 says that when real property is left without a claimant it does not appear that the intervention of the civil court is any was necessary or can be by any low invoked Rule 358 of the rules provides as following : “358. Duties of the Board and Collector by section 8 regulation XIX of 1810 the Board is vested with the general superintendence of all escheats and is required to inform it self fully though the local agents of any property of that description and to direct whether it should in its opinion be disposed of. Duties of the Board and Collector by section 8 regulation XIX of 1810 the Board is vested with the general superintendence of all escheats and is required to inform it self fully though the local agents of any property of that description and to direct whether it should in its opinion be disposed of. The Collector being an ex-officer local agent should report for the order of the Commissioner and the board all case subject to the exceptions mentioned in Rule 359, in which he learns the existence of unclaimed real property. He should take measures at the same time to invite claimants to the property as publicly as possible. Should the Collectors action be opposed by any person actually in possession he must desist from occupying the property of instituting a suit from occupying the property of instituting a suit for the establishment of the right of Government Notice inviting claimants to the property should remain open for six months.” 13. Rule 358 of the Rules in circumstances provides that Should Collectors action be apposed by any person actually in possession be must desist from occupying the property and report the circumstances, with the opinion in regard to the property of instituting a suit for the establishment of the right of Government notice inviting claimants to the property should remain open for six months. 14. It is thus apparent from regarding of this rule that the Collector can not take possession if his action is apposed by any person and in such cases he has to institute a suit for escheat of rights of Government. The Collector should have acted under this rule instead of declaring disputed property to the escheat by means of a summery proceeding. The Order of the Collector is also ultravires Rule 358 of the Bihar boards Miscellaneous Rules 1958. 15. The impugned order therefore is null and vide and is accordingly quashed. All the application are allowed but with out costs. Application allowed.