Judgment : The petitioner is the owner of the premises No.312, Thambu Chetty Street, Madras. In February, 1961, during the excavation work in the premises a large quantity of gold was unearthed. The details of the treasure are as follows: “1. 280 gold coins M.O.I 2. 4 gold ingots M.O.2 3. 25 gold coins M.O.3 4. 2 gold coins M.O.4 5. 38 1/4 tolas of gold ingots M.O.5 6. 160 gold coins M.O.8 7. 15 gold coins M.O.9 8. 152 gold coins M.O.10.” 2. The petitioner did not give notice to the authorities as he should have done under Sec.4 of the Indian Treasure Trove Act’). In August 1962, the police having got information about the finding of the Treasure earthed, came to the petitioner and took away from him, Rs.67,500 which was the sale proceeds of part of the treasure trove, as well as 38 tolas of gold ingots and two gold coins. The petitioner and the finders of the treasure trove Abdul Karim and Thangavelu were then prosecuted under Sec.4 read with Secs.20 and 22 of the Act. The petitioner was convicted under Sec.4 read with Sec.22 of the Act and other two who were the finders of the treasure trove were convicted under Sec.4 read with Sec.20 of the Act. The Chief Presidency Magistrate, while convicting the petitioner and others, also ordered confiscation of the whole of the treasure trove. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.2445 of 1962 before this Court challenging the order of confiscation and Kunhamed Kutty, J. by the order dated 20.11.1963 set aside the order of confiscation as far as the portion of the treasure trove which were recovered from the petitioner was concerned, and remanded the matter to the Chief Presidency Magistrate for fresh disposal with regard to those properties in accordance with law, holding that there was no justification for confiscation as the petitioner was convicted only under Sec.4 read with Sec.22 of the Act. The Chief Presidency Magistrate after remand of the matter, sent it to the Collector for disposal under Sec.4 of the Act. By the order dated 9. 1966, the Collector of Madras has ordered confiscation of whole of the treasure trove including what was recovered from the petitioner. Thereafter, Writ Petition No.2749 of 1966 was filed by the petitioner before this Court to quash the order of confiscation passed by the Collector on 9. 1966. By the order dated 9. 1966, the Collector of Madras has ordered confiscation of whole of the treasure trove including what was recovered from the petitioner. Thereafter, Writ Petition No.2749 of 1966 was filed by the petitioner before this Court to quash the order of confiscation passed by the Collector on 9. 1966. Alagirisamy, J. as he then was who heard the Writ Petition No.2749 of 1966 took the view that Sec.22 of the Act does not provide for any confiscation of the share of the owner of premises and as the petitioner had been prosecuted and convicted only under Sec.4 read with Sec.22 and not under Sec.21, in which only the provision is made for confiscation of the share of the accused convicted under the section, the share of the petitioner in the treasure trove, cannot be validly confiscated by the Collector under Sec.5 of the Act. The learned Judge, further found that the Collector, after declaring the treasure to be ownerless under Sec.9, ought to have given effect to the provisions of Sec. 12 of the Act and as the Collector has not done so, the learned Judge, by the order dated 23. 1969 allowed the Writ Petition No.2749 of 1966 and quashed the order of the Collector dated 9. 1966. The learned Judge further directed the Collector to dispose of the matter afresh in the light of the observations in W.P.No.2749 of 1966 and in accordance with the provisions of Sec.12. Pursuant to the order dated 23. 1969 made in W.P.No.2749 of 1966, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 210. 1985 in G.O.Ms.No.1487. By this said order dated 210. 1985, the first respondent valued the items of treasure not acquired by the Government under Sec.16 at Rs.36,326, fixed the total value of treasure at Rs.1,08,826 and held that the petitioner is entitled to l/4th share of the total value of the treasure viz., Rs.27,206.50 (l/4th of Rs.1,08,826) as per Sec. 12 of the Act together with the l/5th of the value of the treasure acquired by the Government under Sec.16 of the Act. The first respondent fixed the value of the treasure acquired by the Government under Sec.16 of the Act at Rs.26,355 and fixed the l/5th of Rs.26,355 as Rs.5,271. The first respondent fixed the value of the treasure acquired by the Government under Sec.16 of the Act at Rs.26,355 and fixed the l/5th of Rs.26,355 as Rs.5,271. By the impugned order, the first respondent ultimately held that the petitioner as owner of the premises will be entitled to a total sum of Rs.32,477 being his l/4th share in the treasure. The operative portion of the impugned G.O.Ms.No.1487 reads thus: “The Government have examined the recommendation of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration and as ordered by the High Court in W.P.N.2749 of 1966 accord sanction for payment of Rs.32,477.50 (Rupees thirty-two thousand and four hundred and seventy-seven and paise fifty only) (i.e) Rs.27,206.50 towards l/4th of the total value of the treasure of Rs.1,08,820 plus l/5th of treasure to be acquired on behalf of the Government which represents the value of Gold coins to be handed over to the Director of Museum (i.e.) Rs.5,271. The Collector of Madras is requested to claim the amount of Rs.32,477.50 (Rupees thirty-two thousand four hundred and seventy-seven and paise fifty only) and disburse the same to Thiru Abdul Hussain, at an early date. The Government also authorise the Collector of Madras to sell the items mentioned as M.O.2 and M.O.5 (Gold ingots) mentioned in para.1 above in public auction by applying Sec.12 of the Indian Treasure Trove Act and to remit the amount realised into Government Account. The items of Gold Coins referred to as M.Os.1, 3,4,8,9 and 10 in para.1 above are required by the Director of Museum for coin cabinet of the Museum at Madras. The Collector of Madras is, therefore, requested to transfer the above gold coins to the Director of Museum after observing all the formalities.” 3. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner to quash the G.O.Ms.No.1487, dated 210. 1985. 4. Mr.Jacob Kurian the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court, by the order dated 23. 1969 in W.P.No.2749 of 1966, while setting aside the order of the Collector, dated 9. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner to quash the G.O.Ms.No.1487, dated 210. 1985. 4. Mr.Jacob Kurian the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court, by the order dated 23. 1969 in W.P.No.2749 of 1966, while setting aside the order of the Collector, dated 9. 1966, found that the Collector, after declaring the treasure to be ownerless, under Sec.9 ought to have given effect to the provisions of Sec.12 of the Act and by the said order, this Court, directed the Collector to dispose of the matter afresh in the light of the observations made in the order and in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 12 and that as per Sec. 12 of the Act, the petitioner as owner of the premises is entitled to either l/4th of the items of treasure in specie, except the items of gold coins and gold acquired by the Government under Sec.16 of the Act or if the collector chooses to sell the items of gold and gold coins in public auction, as contemplated in the proviso to Sec.12, the petitioner will be entitled to l/4th of the sale proceeds of the treasure sold in public auction: The learned counsel further submitted that Sec.12 of the Act does not contemplate the fixation of the value of the treasure by the Government, that too the value of the treasure as on the date of declaration under Sec.9 of the Act and payment of l/4th share of the value of the treasure so fixed by the Government to the owner of the premises and therefore, the impugned order of the Government fixing the total value of the treasure at Rs.1,08,820 and directing the payment of Rs.32,477.50 to the petitioner towards his l/4th share is contrary to the provisions of Sec.12 illegal and liable to be set aside. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the collector, by his order dated 10. 1991, made a declaration under Sec. 16 of the Act acquiring the following items of treasure: 1. 200 gold coins out of 280 gold coins referred to as M.O.I 2. 25 gold coins 3. 2 gold coins 4. 160 gold coins 5. 15 gold coins 6. 152 gold coins and that even assuming that the order dated 10. 1991, made a declaration under Sec. 16 of the Act acquiring the following items of treasure: 1. 200 gold coins out of 280 gold coins referred to as M.O.I 2. 25 gold coins 3. 2 gold coins 4. 160 gold coins 5. 15 gold coins 6. 152 gold coins and that even assuming that the order dated 10. 1992 is valid a per Sec.16 of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to the sum equal to the value on his l/4th share in the treasure acquired under Sec.16 together with l/5th of such value. 5. The third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that with regard to the items of treasure not acquired by the Government under Sec.16 of the Act, the petitioner will be entitled either to l/4th of such treasure in specie, or l/4th of the sale proceeds of such items of treasure is the Collector chooses to sell them in public auction as contemplated in proviso auction as contemplated in proviso to Sec. 12 of the Act. I am clearly of the opinion that the above contentions of the learned counsel for the petition are correct and deserve acceptance. 6. This Court, by the order dated 23. 1969 in W.P.No.2749 of 1966, while setting aside the order of the Collector dated 9. 1966, held that the Collector, after declaring the treasure to be ownerless under Sec.9, ought to have given effect to the provisions of Sec.12 and consequently remanded the matter to the Collector with a direction to dispose of the matter afresh in the light of the observations in W.P.No.2749 of 1966 and in accordance with the provisions of Sec.12. A perusal of the impugned order, clearly shows that the first respondent while passing the impugned order, has not followed either the directions given by this Court in W.P.No.2749 of 1966 or the provisions contained in Secs. 12 and 16 of the Act, while dealing with the treasure trove. 7. A perusal of the impugned order, clearly shows that the first respondent while passing the impugned order, has not followed either the directions given by this Court in W.P.No.2749 of 1966 or the provisions contained in Secs. 12 and 16 of the Act, while dealing with the treasure trove. 7. Sec.12 of the Act reads thus: "When only one such person claims and his claims is not disputed, treasure to be divided: 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, and 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 (namely):If the finder and the person so claiming have not entered into any agreement then in force as to the disposal of the treasure, three-fourths of the treasure shall be allotted to such finder and the residue to such person. If such finder and such person have entered into any such agreement, the treasure shall be disposed of in accordance therewith." Provided that the Collector may in any case, if he thinks fit, instead of dividing any treasure as directed by this section: .(a) allot to either party the whole or more than his share of such treasure, on such party paying to the Collector for the other party such sum of money as the Collector may fix as the equivalent of the share of such other party, or of the excess so allotted, as the case may be; or .(b) sell such treasure or any portion thereof by public auction and divide the sale-proceeds between the parties according to the rule herein before prescribed: "Provided also, that when the Collector has by his declaration under Sec.9 rejected any claim made under this Act by any person other than the said finder or person claiming as owner of the place in which the treasure was found, such division, shall not be made until after the expiration of two months without an appeal having been presented under Sec.9 by the person whose claim has been so rejected, or, when an appeal has been so presented, after such appeal has been dismissed and shares to be delivered to parties. When the Collector has made a division under this section he shall deliver to the parties the portions of such treasure, or the money in lieu thereof, to which they are respectively entitled under such division." Admittedly, in the present case, the items of treasure mentioned as M.O.4 (two gold coins) were acquired by the Collector under Sec.16 on 25. 1965 and the following items of treasure were acquired under Sec.16 on 10. 1991: "1. 200 gold coins, out of 280 gold coins referred as M.O.I 2. 25 gold coins 3. 2 gold coins 4. 160 gold coins 5. 15 gold coins 6. 152 gold coins Total 554 gold coins." out of 280 gold coins seized, referred to as (item 1) M.O.I, only 200 gold coins, along with other items were acquired under Sec.16 on 10. 1991. The remaining 80 out of 280 gold coins referred to as M.O.1 (item 1) were not acquired by the Collector under Sec.16 of the Act. As per Sec.12 of the Act, the petitioner is entitled either to l/4th share out of 80 gold coins referred to M.O.I, 4 gold ingots referred to as M.O.2 and 38 1/4 tolas of gold referred to as M.O.5 which are not acquired by the Collector under Sec. 16 of the Act, in specie, or to l/4th of the sale-proceeds of the said items, if the Collector chooses to sell the said items of gold coins in public auction, as contemplated under proviso to Sec.12. Sec.12 does not give power to the Government to unilaterally fix the value of the Treasure and direct payment of l/4th share of the value of the Treasure so fixed to the owner of the premises. Therefore, the impugned order fixing the total value of the items of treaure at Rs.1,08,820 and directing the payment of Rs.32,477.50 to the petitioner towards his l/4th share is clearly erroneous and contrary to the provisions of Sec.12 and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 8. Further, the direction in paragraph 8 of the impugned order, authorising the Collector to sell the items mentioned as M.O.2 and M.O.5 (gold ingots) in publicauction no doubt is in accordance with the provisions of Sec.12. 8. Further, the direction in paragraph 8 of the impugned order, authorising the Collector to sell the items mentioned as M.O.2 and M.O.5 (gold ingots) in publicauction no doubt is in accordance with the provisions of Sec.12. However, the further direction in paragraph 8 of the impugned order directing the Collector to remit the amount realised by the sale of the said items, M.O.2 and M.O.5 in public auction, into Government Account is illegal and contrary to the provisions of Sec.12. When the first respondent directed the Collector to sell the items mentioned as M.O.2 and M.O.5 in public auction, the first respondent ought to have directed the Collector to pay one fourth of sale-proceeds realised by selling those items in public auction, to the petitioner as contemplated in the proviso to Sec.12. 9. Admittedly, the following items of treasure were acquired by the Collector under Sec.16: Sec.16 of the Act provides that the Collector may, at any time after making a declaration under Sec.9 before delivering or dividing the treasure, declare by writing under his hand his intention to acquire on behalf of the Government, the treasure, or any specified portion thereof, by payment to the persons entitled there to of a sum equal to the value of the materials of such treasure or portion, together with one fifth of such value, and may place such sum in deposit in his treasury to the credit of such persons: and thereupon such treasure or portion shall be deemed to be the property of the Government, and the money so deposited shall be dealt with, as far as may be, as if it were such treasure or portion. As per Sec.l6 of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to the payment of a sum equal to the value of the l/4th share of the items of treasure acquired under Sec.16 together with one fifth of such value. 10. Again, the petitioner is entitled to have the value of the items of treasure acquired under Sec.16, fixed, as on the date of acquisition of items of treasure under Sec. 16, and not the value of the treasure as on the date of declaration under Sec.9 of the Act as contended on behalf of the respondents. 10. Again, the petitioner is entitled to have the value of the items of treasure acquired under Sec.16, fixed, as on the date of acquisition of items of treasure under Sec. 16, and not the value of the treasure as on the date of declaration under Sec.9 of the Act as contended on behalf of the respondents. Once when the Collector makes a declaration under Sec.9, that the treasure is ownerless, then Sec.12 is attracted and the petitioner who is the owner of the place in which the treasure has been found becomes entitled to one fourth share in the treasure. The petitioner is entitled to have his share in the treasure till it is acquired by the Collector, under Sec.16 of the Act. In this case, admittedly, the item referred to as M.O.4 was acquired on 25. 1965 and six other items as already mentioned were acquired on 10. 1991. When the Collector acquires the items of treasure under Sec.16 of the Act, the said items become the property of the Government only on the deposit of the sum referred to in Sec. 16 in the Treasury to the credit of the person who is entitled to a share in the treasure. Therefore, the relevant date for fixing the value of the items of treasure acquired under Sec.16 of the Act is the date on which such acquisition of the items of treasure is made under Sec.16. In this view of the matter, it has to be held that the petitioner is entitled to have the value of the items of treasure acquired under Sec.16, fixed as on the date of such acquisition under Sec.16 of the Act, and not the value of the items of treasure as on the date of declaration underSec.9 of the Act as contended on behalf of the respondents. As the first respondent, in fixing the value of the items of treasure acquired under Sec.16, has not followed the principles laid down in Sec.16 of the Act, the impugned order is illegal and liable to be quashed. 11. For all the reasons stated above, it has to be held that the Government order G.O.Ms.No.1487, dated 210. 1985 challenged in this writ petition is illegal and is liable to be quashed. 11. For all the reasons stated above, it has to be held that the Government order G.O.Ms.No.1487, dated 210. 1985 challenged in this writ petition is illegal and is liable to be quashed. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is quashed and the following directions are issued to the respondents: .(1) Respondents are directed to deliver to the petitioner one fourth share of the following items of treasure which are not acquired by the Government under Scc.6 in species; (i.e.) .(i) 80 gold coins: M.O.1 (out of 280 gold coins only 200 acquired under Sec.16) .(ii) 4 gold ingots: M.O.2 not acquired TREASURE NOT ACQUIRED AT ALL: (iii) 38 1/4 tolas of gold: M.O.5 not acquired .(iv) Cash Rs.67,500: M.O.6 not acquired (v) Cash Rs.5,000: M.O.7 not acquired." However, if the respondents choose to sell the gold and gold coins referred to above, as contemplated under the proviso to Sec.12 in public auction, the respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner his one fourth share in such sale proceeds of the items referred above, sold in public auction, along with his share in the cash; .(2) In respect of the items of treasure acquired by the Government under Sec.16, viz., the gold and gold coins acquired on 25. 1965 and on 10. 1991, the respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner a sum equal to the value of l/4th share of the items of treasure acquired under Sec.16 together with one fifth of such value as contemplated in Sec.16, fixing the market value of the items of gold and gold coins as on the date of acquisition under Sec.16 of the Act. viz., 25. 1965 in respect of the items covered by M.O.4 and 10. 1991 in respect of the other items; (3) The respodnets are directed to comply with the above directions within four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. No costs.