JUDGMENT : Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 10.05.2005 passed by the learned District Judge, Alwar in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.389/2002 whereby, the order dated 19.07.2002 passed by the Additional Collector (II), Alwar, District Alwar (for brevity, "the Additional Collector") in Case No.12-4/25/Rajasthan/Escheats/84 declaring the subject property as "bona vacantia" and liable for escheating it under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956 (for brevity, "the Act of 1956"), has been affirmed and the property has been 'escheated' dismissing the objection filed by the petitioner. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that on an application filed by one Shri. Kshetrapal son of Devkaran stating therein that Ms. Dakha daughter of Nathuram resident of Jakhrana has expired issueless and her property has been encroached upon by Shri. Mahaveer and it is liable to be escheated, the Tehsildar Behror, vide its report dated 17.05.1985, found the property to be "bona vacantia". Objections to the report were invited vide public notice dated 15.10.1987 whereupon, the petitioner as also Shri. Mahaveer Prasad filed their objections. Rejecting the objections filed by them, the Additional Collector, vide order dated 19.07.2002, finding the property to be "bona vacantia" and liable to be escheated, referred the matter under Section 6(9)(b) of the Act of 1956 to the District Judge, Alwar for passing appropriate order. The District Judge, Alwar, vide order impugned dated 10.05.2005, approved the order dated 19.07.2002 and escheated the property to the Government. 3. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since he has purchased the subject property through an agreement dated 11.10.1983 from Shri. Gajadhar, nephew of the deceased-Dakha Devi, the learned Court erred in affirming the order dated 19.07.2002 and escheating the property to the Government. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed and the order dated 10.05.2005 be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard. Considered. 5. The learned District Judge as well as the Additional Collector have, on the basis of material on record, found that Ms. Dakha has expired issueless and there was no evidence to substantiate that the petitioner has purchased the subject property from her rightful legal heir. Moreover, indisputably, there is no sale deed of the subject property in favour of the petitioner; rather, he relies upon an unregistered deed dated 11.10.1983 allegedly executed by Gajadhar whose relationship with deceased-Dakha Devi is not otherwise established. Moreover, indisputably, there is no sale deed of the subject property in favour of the petitioner; rather, he relies upon an unregistered deed dated 11.10.1983 allegedly executed by Gajadhar whose relationship with deceased-Dakha Devi is not otherwise established. It is trite law that no title of an immovable property transfers on the basis of an unregistered deed. 6. In view thereof, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the order impugned dated 10.05.2005 passed by the learned District Judge, Alwar. 7. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.