JUDGMENT 1. The dispute relates to House No. 330, Mishra Rajaji Ka Rata, Jaipur. The house originally belonged to four persons namely; Annilal son of Chhotelal, Ram Kumar, Radha Ballabh and Ram Chandra. It appears that escheat proceedings were initiated in regard to the above house in the year 1932, however, same could not be concluded for one reason or the other. It was again in the year 1983 that the report of the Naib Tehsildar was sought by the District Collector on a anonymous complaint received in regard to the property in dispute. Naib Tehsildar, submitted his report on 13.9.1984. Again clarification was sought by the District Collector. Subsequently, the Tehsildar submitted his report on 31.10.1984. It was reported that portion of the house possessed by the petitioners in the Writ Petition No. 2984/1991 was legal in view of the purchase of the portion of the house made by them, however, the other portion possessed by the contesting respondents was not valid since they could not produce any evidence in regard to their legal possession. Subsequently, a notice under section 6 of the Rajasthan Escheat Regulation Act, 1956 was issued by the District Collector on 21.1.1985. The District Collector, on the basis of report and material available on record, held the portion of property possessed by the contesting respondents as escheat property vide order dated 16.5.1989. On an appeal under Section 7 of the above Act of 1956 filed by the contesting. respondents, the Board of Revenue, vide order dated 25.1.1991, however, held that the property in dispute cannot be held as escheat property. Hence, the present writ petitions challenging the order of the Board of Revenue passed on 25.1.1991. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while heavily relying on the report of the Tehsildar as also the contradictions in the pedigree of the contesting respondents, submitted that the Board of Revenue has erred in ignoring the contradictions so made by the contesting respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, while referring to the material submitted on record, has supported the order passed by the Board of Revenue. 4. After having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record as also the orders passed by the authorities below. 5. 3. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, while referring to the material submitted on record, has supported the order passed by the Board of Revenue. 4. After having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record as also the orders passed by the authorities below. 5. As has already been referred above, the property originally belonged to four persons namely; Annilal, Ram Kumar, Radha Ballabh and Ram Chandra. Radha Ballabh alleged to have sold his portion of the property, which, ultimately, came into the possession of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2984/1991. Ram Kumar and Ram Chandra alleged to have died without any issue. The dispute is in regard to the pedigree of Annilal. Petitioners have tried to take benefit of some contradictions made by successors of Annilal in the year 1985-86. In one set, pedigree has been shown as Annilal -Pannalal - Damodar- Ganga Sahay and the present contesting respondents, whereas, in other set, the pedigree has been shown as Annilal-Damodar-Ganga Sahay and the present contesting respondents. The Board of Revenue, apart from holding that the burden was on the State to claim the property as escheat property by showing that there is no legal claimant of the property in dispute, has further observed that there may be some confusion in the name of Annilal @ Pannalal. Pedigree from Damodar onwards has not been disputed so far, however, there is nothing on record to show that Annilal and Pannalal were two different persons. There is also no dispute that the predecessors of present contesting respondents even at the time of initiation of escheat proceedings in the year 1932. The contesting respondents have also relied on an order passed by the Assistant Collector, Sawai Madhopur way back on 15.9.1953, declaring that the portion of the property possessed by the contesting respondents cannot be declared as escheat property. Though, a copy of the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Sawai Madhopur had been placed on record, may not be a certified copy, however, burden was on the State to allege that no such order, as submitted by the contesting respondents, was ever passed by the Assistant Collector, Sawai Madhopur. 6. Though, a copy of the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Sawai Madhopur had been placed on record, may not be a certified copy, however, burden was on the State to allege that no such order, as submitted by the contesting respondents, was ever passed by the Assistant Collector, Sawai Madhopur. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, way back in the year 1983, in case of State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh & Ors., ([1983] 3 SCC 118) , held that when a claim of escheat is put forward by the Government the onus lies heavily on the Government to prove the absence of any heir of the property anywhere in the world. The Court also observed that purely mathematical approach cannot be made in regard to pedigree because where a long line of descent has to be proved spreading over a century there may be certain discrepancies in names. In the present case, there is nothing on record to prove that Annilal-Pannalal-Damodar-Ganga Sahah and the present contesting respondents are a differed set of family than the family of Annilal - Damodar- Ganga Sahah and the present contesting respondents. 7. Having considered entire facts and circumstances, I find no error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue so as to call for any interference of this court. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed as having no merits. *******