Judgment ( 1. ) BY filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india the petitioners have challenged the order dated 12-4-2004 (Annexure P-5)passed by the first respondent State of M. P. by which sanction was accorded to the second respondent Collector Hoshangabad to confiscate the property of deceased Mohan Sunder Gorakshkar and also against the consequential orders dated 1-5-2004 (Annexure P-6) and 19-5-2004 (Annexure P-7) issued by the collector and the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), respectively. ( 2. ) PETITIONER No. 1 is son and the petitioner 2 is widow of one Mohan sunder Gorakshkar who died on 26-2-1994 at Mumbai (Maharashtra ). The deceased Mohan Sunder Gorakshkar had purchased a bungalow constructed on nuzul Plot No. 14 Sheet No. 20 admeasuring 8100 sq. ft. , Civil Area at pachmarhi District Hoshangabad from one Dennis Torry vide registered sale-deed dated 17-4-1984 (Annexure P- l ). After the purchase of the said property the same was mutated in the name of Mohan Sunder Gorakshkar in the revenue records. According to the petitioners deceased Mohan Sunder gorakshkar resident of Mumbai, but he used to visit frequently the aforesaid bungalow named as green Slopes at Pachmarhi. During his life time he used to deposit the rent to the Nuzul Department and property tax of the Bungalow to the Special Area Development Authority (SADA) Pachmarhi. ( 3. ) THE petitioners stated that after the death of Mohan Sunder gorakshkar the said Bungalow green Slopes came into their possession and they started maintaining the same by keeping a Care Taker for the purpose. They were depositing the rent in the Revenue Department and the property tax in t he office of the SADA Pachmarhi. In the year 2002 the Care Taker also died. Thereafter the petitioners used to visit the said bungalow as and when it was possible for them. It is also stated that they applied through their Advocate for mutation of their names on the basis of Will dated 23-10-1990 (Annexure P-3)executed in their favour by the deceased Mohan Sunder Gorakshkar. ( 4. ) IT is further averred in the petition that in the month of June, 2004 during the petitioners visit to Pachmarhi they were shocked to know about some action of confiscation of the said bungalow being taken by the Revenue authorities. ( 4. ) IT is further averred in the petition that in the month of June, 2004 during the petitioners visit to Pachmarhi they were shocked to know about some action of confiscation of the said bungalow being taken by the Revenue authorities. On being enquired and after great efforts they could receive copy of order dated 12-4-2004 (Annexure P-5) issued by the State Govt, according sanction to the Collector to proceed in respect of confiscation of the aforesaid property of the deceased. The petitioners further stated that having come to know about the aforesaid order they contacted their Advocate to know the progress about their mutation application, but for the reasons best known to him, the Advocate did not give proper reply to the petitioners. Feeling helpless the petitioners submitted a representation before the second respondent collector, Hoshangabad stating all the details about their rights over the said property. Along with the representation they also submitted copies of the tax deposit receipt and the Will executed by the deceased owner of the said property in their favour. However, since no orders were passed on the said representation inspite of various reminders they filed this petition. ( 5. ) THE respondents filed return and denied the averments made in the petition. According to the respondents the property was lying vacant and there was every likelihood of valuable land being encroached and as no legal heir of late Mohan Sunder Gorakshkar came forward to claim any right over the said property the permission was granted by the State Govt, to confiscate the said property. According to the respondents the annual ground rent from the year 2000 to 2003 was not deposited inspite of demand notice being issued to the owner. On a report being submitted by the Revenue Inspector on 30-3-2003 (Annexure R- l) it was forwarded by the Tehsildar Pachmarhi to the Sub divisional Officer (Revenue) for taking appropriate action. The Sub Divisional officer on the basis of report received to him and from the sources found that the owner of the property Mohan Sunder Gorakshkar and his wife are dead. It was also revealed by the SDO that the legal representatives of the deceased have left the country. The Sub Divisional officer on the basis of report received to him and from the sources found that the owner of the property Mohan Sunder Gorakshkar and his wife are dead. It was also revealed by the SDO that the legal representatives of the deceased have left the country. He accordingly referred the matter vide letter dated 29-8-2003 (Annexure R-2) to the second respondent Collector, Hoshangabad for taking action for confiscation of the property in favour of the State in terms of the provisions of Revenue Book Circular. On receipt of the said report (Annexure r-2) of the Sub Divisional Officer the Collector vide letter dated 14-1-2004 (Annexure R-3) submitted his report to the first respondent State Govt, recommending confiscation of the said property in favour of the State in terms of Chapter I Clause 3 of the Revenue Book Circular. Thus, the respondents stated that as there was no person available to claim the property and the notice sent to the deceased owner of the property returned back unserved there was no question of any further notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. ( 6. ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed by the parties. ( 7. ) CHAPTER I Clause 3 (2) of Revenue Book Circular provides that before confiscation of the property after the death of the owner or person in possession without there being any Will, the Patwari on being come to know about the such fact shall forthwith report the matter to the Tehsildar and the tehsildar after making the preliminary enquiry about the actual possession and the rights of the probable claimant of the property shall submit the report to the sub Divisional Officer. ( 8. ) IN the present case as is clear from the various receipts of Nuzul rent and property tax paid by the petitioners which are collectively marked as annexure P-2 that after the death of the owner of the property the petitioner no. 1 was depositing the rent and the property tax before the Revenue authorities and the Special Area Development Authority, Pachmarhi. In the said receipts (Annexure P-2) the full name and complete address of petitioner no. 1 was mentioned. 1 was depositing the rent and the property tax before the Revenue authorities and the Special Area Development Authority, Pachmarhi. In the said receipts (Annexure P-2) the full name and complete address of petitioner no. 1 was mentioned. However, inspite of the availability of the address of the petitioner No. 1 who was paying rent and the property tax neither the Tehsildar nor the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) cared to issue notice to the petitioner no. 1 and make preliminary enquiry contemplated under Revenue Book circular. Thus, without issuing any notice to the petitioner No. 1 whose address was very much available in the rent and the property tax deposit receipts the revenue Inspector, the Tehsildar and the Sub Divisional Officer recommended for confiscation of the property on the ground that there is nobody to claim possession or right over the said property. Strangely in the report (Annexure r-2) of the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) he stated that the petitioner No. 2 is dead. There was absolutely no material to record such an incorrect finding. Even the notice said to have been sent to the deceased has not been produced. As is clear from Annexure R- l the Tehsildar did not conduct any preliminary enquiry and merely forwarded the letter of Revenue Inspector to the Sub divisional Officer (Revenue ). Under the Revenue Book Circular it was obligatory on the part of Tehsildar to have made a preliminary enquiry about the possession and the probable claimant of the said property. The Tehsildar without making any enquiry as required to be conducted under the Revenue book Circular has acted illegally and arbitrarily in forwarding the report of the revenue Inspector to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue ). ( 9. ) THE Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) also in most casual manner recommended the confiscation of the property of the deceased by stating that the petitioner No. 2 wife of deceased Mohan Sunder Gorakshkar has also died and the legal representatives have left India. Before recording such finding the said authority made no efforts to go through and verify the records and to find out of the address of the petitioner No. 1 which was very much available on record as per the rent and property tax deposit receipts. ( 10. Before recording such finding the said authority made no efforts to go through and verify the records and to find out of the address of the petitioner No. 1 which was very much available on record as per the rent and property tax deposit receipts. ( 10. ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case I have no hesitation to hold that the action taken by the respondents in recommending the confiscation of the property of the deceased is wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the instructions issued under the Revenue Book Circular. The impugned action has been taken by the respondents giving complete go-bye to the provisions of the Revenue Book Circular and as such the same cannot be sustained. ( 11. ) ACCORDINGLY, the impugned order (Annexure P-5) and the conse-quential orders Annexures P-6 and P-7 deserve to be and are hereby quashed. The petitioners application (Annexure RJ-1) for mutation which is pending before the Tehsildar, Pachmarhi be considered and decided by him in accordance with law. Writ Petition allowed.