JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. 1. The controversy in these cases relates to a property, which is better known as ‘Alathur Estate’ at Wayanad, originally owned by late Edward Joubert Van Ingen, a man of British origin, stated to have been born and domiciled in India. 2. It transpires that late Van Ingen executed a Sale Deed, bearing No. 267/2006, of Mananthavadi SRO (herein after referred to as the ‘Gift Deed’ for short) favouring the petitioner in WP (C) No. 11/2022 - Sri. Micheal Floyid Eshwar and he had transferred the property in his name by completing mutation and Transfer of Registry. 3. However, thereafter, proceedings were initiated by the District Collector, invoking powers under the Kerala Escheat and Forfeiture Act, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Escheat Act’ for short). This led to Ext.P11 being issued by the said Authority, finding that, even though late Van Ingen was the valid owner of the property in question, he obtained no competence to execute the “Gift Deed” in favour of Sri. Micheal Floyid Eshwar, without having obtained permission from the competent Authorities under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA)/Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). 4. While Sri. Micheal Floyid Eshwar filed an appeal against this order before the Land Revenue Commissioner; another person, namely the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 27529/2018 - Smt. Matilda Rosamonda Gifford, claiming to be the legal heir of Van Ingen, challenged the order to the extent to which the “Escheat Act” had been applied, asserting that she is his sole legal heir. 5. The Statutory Appeal filed by Sri. Micheal Floyid Eshwar before the Land Revenue Commissioner ended in Ext.P12 order, produced along with W.P. (C) No. 11/2022, in which, the findings of the District Collector had been affirmed; and he, thereupon, filed a further Statutory Appeal, under Section 6 of the “Escheat Act” before the Government, which has now culminated in Ext.P13, order impugned in W.P. (C) No. 11/2022. 6. While so, the adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act), appears to have registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and to have issued an order dated 23.10.2020, arraying Sri. Micheal Floyid Eshwar as the defendant, attaching the afore said property under the provisions of the said Act on various imputations and allegations. 6. While so, the adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act), appears to have registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and to have issued an order dated 23.10.2020, arraying Sri. Micheal Floyid Eshwar as the defendant, attaching the afore said property under the provisions of the said Act on various imputations and allegations. The Government, very interestingly, has challenged that order, producing it as Ext.P5 in W.P. (C) No. 26249/2022, for the limited purpose of asserting that they are the real owners of the property; and consequently, that the proceedings aforementioned is untenable. They specifically contest the findings in the order, that Sri. Micheal Floyid Eashwar is the owner of the property in question. 7. I have heard Sri. K. Anand, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri. S. Vishnu - appearing for Sri. Micheal Floyid Eashwar; Smt. Sandhya Raju - appearing for Smt. Matilda Rosamonda Gifford and the learned Special Government Pleader - Sri. S. Ranjith appearing for the State of Kerala and its functionaries. 8. Sri. K. Anand - learned Senior Counsel, explained that the modus now adopted by the State, in invoking the “Escheat Act” is by first assuming that late Van Ingen had no legal heirs at all; and then by illegally adjudicating the validity of the “Gift Deed” and finding it to be unsustainable, solely because late Van Ingen had not allegedly obtained clearance under FEMA or FERA - as the case may be, before it had been executed. 9. The learned Senior Counsel vehemently argued that, even assuming that such an allegation is tenable, the District Collector would obtain no right to adjudicate the validity of the “Gift Deed” and that it could have been done only by the competent Authority under the FEMA/FERA, if at all any such was warranted. 9. The learned Senior Counsel vehemently argued that, even assuming that such an allegation is tenable, the District Collector would obtain no right to adjudicate the validity of the “Gift Deed” and that it could have been done only by the competent Authority under the FEMA/FERA, if at all any such was warranted. He then argued that, as is evident from the proceedings of the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA Act, namely Ext.P5 in W.P. (C) No. 26249/2022 filed by State of Kerala, his client has been shown as the owner of the property, after noticing correctly that late Van Ingen had settled it in his favour through a “Gift Deed.” He thus prayed that Exts.P11, P12 and P13 in W.P. (C) No. 11/2022 be set aside; and his client be allowed to use of the property, subject to the proceedings under the PMLA Act - which he asserted his client is defending effectively. 10. Sri. K. Anand concluded his arguments, pointing out to Ext.P14 in W.P. (C) No. 11/2022 - which is a letter issued by the Reserve Bank of India to the Taluk Land Board, when proceedings under the Land Reforms Act had been initiated against the property - to the effect that the provisions of the FEMA would not apply and argued that it is disregarding this, though fully being aware of its rigor, that impugned orders have been issued in these writ petitions. 11. Sri. S. Ranjith - learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the State of Kerala, commenced his submissions in support of Exts.P11, P12 and P13 in W.P. (C) No. 11/2022 saying that, even when Van Ingen was alive, he had made complaints against Sri. Micheal Floyid Eshwar that the “Gift Deed” was obtained from him by fraud. He submitted that it was, therefore, enjoined on the Authorities to act, particularly when they found that “Gift Deed” had been executed by late Van Ingen in blatant violation of the FEMA/FERA - as the case may be; and hence that when the said transaction was so found to be illegal, obviously, it could only have been disregarded. He admitted that, then, the only further question which subsisted was whether late Van Ingen had any other legal heir. He admitted that, then, the only further question which subsisted was whether late Van Ingen had any other legal heir. He pointed out that the District Collector caused enquiries on this and found that he was not survived by any legal heir; and thus invoked the provisions of “Escheat Act” leading to his order, namely Ext.P11, to be issued. He argued that the findings of the District Collector have been approved by the Land Revenue Commissioner - being the First Appellate Authority; as also by Government of Kerala - the Second Appellate Authority, as is evident from Exts.P12 and P13 respectively in W.P. (C) No. 11/2022. He thus prayed that said writ petition be dismissed. 12. After arguing as afore, Sri. S. Ranjith then entered his second limb of arguments, predicating that the Adjudicating Authority under the “PMLA” was in error in having entered into a conclusive finding that the Sri. Micheal Floyid Eshwar was the true owner of the property in question; and that it is, therefore, that the State decided to file W.P. (C) No. 26249/2022, challenging Ext.P5 therein. He, however, conceded expressly that the further finding of the Adjudicating Authority, that the property was obtained by Sri. Micheal Floyid Eshwar by fraud, is fully accepted; but that, as long as he is arrayed as the defendant therein, it would create an impression that he is the owner of the property. He thus prayed that W.P. (C) No. 26249/2022 be allowed, so as to enable the State to be in charge and custody of the property in question, without the order of attachment issued under the PMLA Act operating against it. 13. Sri. Jaishankar V. Nair - learned Standing Counsel for the Enforcement Directorate, submitted that, as evident from Ext.P5 in W.P. (C) No. 26249/2022, there are valid reasons why his client has initiated action. He submitted that since the documents show the owner of the property to be Sri. Micheal Floyid Eshwar, he has been arrayed as a defendant; but that, the investigation is to find that any other interest is involved, including that of State, necessary incorporations will be made in the proceedings. He thus asserted that, therefore, the State need not harbour any grievance with respect to this; but that as matters now stand, since the property remains in the name of Sri. He thus asserted that, therefore, the State need not harbour any grievance with respect to this; but that as matters now stand, since the property remains in the name of Sri. Micheal Floyid Eshwar, it requires to be attached, as has been correctly done through the order impugned. 14. Smt. Sandhya Raju, appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 27529/2018, namely Smt. Matila Rosamonda Gifford, submitted that her client is challenging Ext.P11 order of the District Collector issued under the “Escheat Act” but admitted that she has not challenged the subsequent orders of either the Land Revenue Commissioner, or the Government - being the further Appellate Authorities under the said Act. She argued that, however, as long as her client is the true legal heir of late Van Ingen, the State cannot take the property, invoking the principles of Escheat, for whatever reason they may cite. She thus prayed that W.P. (C) No. 27529/2018 be allowed. 15. The afore narrative of essential facts and contentions of the learned Senior Counsel and learned counsel for the parties, being so recorded, it becomes perspicuous that there are two broad issues involved in these cases, namely: (a) Whether the District Collector had any right to enter into the validity of the “Gift Deed” executed by late Van Ingen in favour of Sri. Micheal Floyid Eshwar. (b) Whether, when there are other claims by persons who assert to be the legal heirs of late Van Ingen, the State could have invoked the “Escheat Act” to hold the properties to themselves. 16. As a corollary, a further issue arises if State would be entitled to any relief in W.P. (C) No. 26249/2022, against the order now issued by the competent Authority under the “PMLA.” 17. The facts involved in these cases are not in dispute. The factum of late Van Ingen having acquired the property validly is expressly admitted and the factum of him having used it during his life time, until the “Gift Deed” was executed is also without dispute. 18. The genesis of the controversy in these writ petitions is in late Van Ingen having executed the “Gift Deed” in favour of Sri. Micheal Floyid Eshwar and the Authorities under the “Escheat Act” say that this was illegal because he had not obtained prior clearance/permission from the competent Authority under the FERA/FEMA - as the case may be. 19. 18. The genesis of the controversy in these writ petitions is in late Van Ingen having executed the “Gift Deed” in favour of Sri. Micheal Floyid Eshwar and the Authorities under the “Escheat Act” say that this was illegal because he had not obtained prior clearance/permission from the competent Authority under the FERA/FEMA - as the case may be. 19. In this context, one must assess if the District Collector would obtain any right in law to declare the “Gift Deed” to be invalid or illegal, even assuming that there was any violation of the FERA/FEMA, while it was executed. I, therefore, pointedly asked the learned Special Government Pleader as to which provision was invoked by the District Collector for the purpose, to which, he had no cogent explanation, except saying that, since the said Authority found that no sanction under the FERA/FEMA had been obtained by late Van Ingen, he assumed that the transaction itself is invalid and void. He also then admitted, again to a pointed question from this Court, that the District Collector had not referred the matter to any competent Authority under FERA/FEMA, but unilaterally entered into a conclusion that the “Gift Deed” is bad for the reason of violation of the provisions of the said statutes. He, nevertheless, asserted that this was within the competence of the District collector to have done so, but again, without being able to corroborate it in any manner validly. 20. That being said, the provisions of “Escheat Act” could have been invoked by the District Collector, or by any other Authority under it, only if the property belonged to late Van Ingen when he died, without any other legal heirs surviving him. 21. In the case at hand, however, as matters now stand, on account of the “Gift Deed” - which is a registered document and which has not been admittedly cancelled through any process of law, even as on date - the property became transferred in the name of Sri. Micaheal Floyid Eshwar and this is why the Adjudicating Authority under the “PMLA” has initiated action against the property, arraying him as the defendant, as evident from Ext.P5 in W.P. (C) No. 26249/2022. Of course, the State says that such a proceeding should not have been initiated at all because, the property is theirs under the “Escheat Act” and not in the ownership of Sri. Micheal Floyid Eshwar. Of course, the State says that such a proceeding should not have been initiated at all because, the property is theirs under the “Escheat Act” and not in the ownership of Sri. Micheal Floyid Eshwar. However, they assert so solely on the basis of the orders impugned in W.P. (C) No. 11/2022. 22. That said, as far as Smt. Matilda Rosamonda Gifford - the petitioner in WPC 27529/2018, is concerned, as I have already said above, she challenges the order of the District Collector, but without challenging the orders of the Appellate Authorities. 23. Obviously, therefore, the entire controversy now boils down to the validity of Exts.P11, P12 and P13 produced in W.P. (C) No. 11/2022 by Sri. Micheal Floyid Eshwar. 24. At first blush, and even on a closer examination, the competence of the District Collector, to declare the “Gift Deed” void, for whatever be the reason and then to disregard it, to hold that the property - even though already Transferred in Registry in favour of Sri. Micheal Floyid Eshwar and all relevant records having been so modulated - is under the rigour of escheat, is extremely suspicious. As I have seen above, even the learned Special Government Pleader was unable to show me any power vested with the District Collector to have entered into such an action and therefore, if, for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the “Gift Deed” is valid, then obviously, the provisions of the “Escheat Act” would not come to apply at all. This is without doubt and is conceded. 25. To paraphrase, the method now adopted by the District Collector is to declare the ‘Gift Deed’ to be invalid, by asserting that it was executed by late Van Ingen in violation of FEMA/FERA; and then to hold that the property thus remains in the latter’s name and further then assuming that he has no legal heirs, making the ‘Escheat Act’ apply. 26. However, all the afore assumptions of the State are on extremely tenuous grounds because, for one, Smt. Matilda Rosamonda Gifford has come forward asserting that she is one of the legal heirs of late Van Ingen; and, for the second, the ‘Gift Deed’ has not been cancelled by any process known to law, it resultantly being impossible for the District Collector to do so, whatever be the reason he may cite. 27. 27. To add to this, the Enforcement Directorate has already moved against the property arraying Sri. Micheal Floyid Eshwar as the owner of the property, though the State now asserts that the proceeding is unnecessary, because it is vested with them under the ‘Escheat Act’. But, at this juncture, it must be remembered that, against any order of the Adjudicating Authority, there is a Statutory right of Appeal available before the Appellate Authority constituted under the ‘PMLA’. In fact, this is also unreservedly admitted by Sri. S. Ranjith - learned Special Government Pleader. 28. Indubitably, therefore, even if the State has any ground to raise against the orders issued by the Adjudicating Authority under the ‘PMLA’ they must invoke their Statutory remedies before the Appellate Authority. In fact, going by the submissions of Sri. Jaisankar Nair afore recorded, this appears to be sufficiently protected already. 29. In summation, since this Court cannot grant imprimatur to the action of the District Collector, in having declared the ‘Gift Deed’ to be invalid and since Smt. Matilda Rosamonda Gifford has also raised a contention that she is one of the legal heirs of late Van Ingen, the entire matter will certainly have to be reconsidered and re-evaluated by the competent Authority, but only after entering into a conclusion whether any action under the ‘Escheat Act’ is possible. 30. In the afore circumstances: (a) W.P. (C) No. 11/2022 is allowed and Exts.P11 to P13 are set aside; however, leaving liberty to the competent Authority under the “Escheat Act to initiate action against the property in question, but only after analyzing whether any such is possible in law and adverting specifically to Ext.P14 instructions of the Reserve Bank of India. Obviously, therefore, if any such action is to be initiated, petitioner will be heard, along with Smt. Matilda Rosamonda Gifford, or any other person who may claim any form of right over the property in question. (b) W.P. (C) No. 27529/2018 is ordered in terms of the afore directions. (c) W.P. (C) No. 26249/2022 is dismissed; however, with every liberty being reserved to the State of Kerala and its functionaries to invoke their alternative remedies against Ext.P5 therein; or to take necessary action after the directions (a) above are completed, whichever option they may choose to invoke.