Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
General.-[1] Where the Collector passes an order under section 6(9) of this Act, it is a final order. The person aggrieved by such an order can prefer an appeal under section 7 of this Act, where the Collector/Additional Collector passes an interim order under section 6(9) an appeal is not maintainable. Paradevi v. State of Rajasthan,1975 KS 245=1975 RRD 519. [2] Appeal provided u/s 7 only against final order of Collector. General superinterdence of properties vests in collector and board can also give directions to Collector-Addl. Collector could direct The. u/s 3 not to disturb possession of non- petitioner. Appeal is a creature of statute. An appeal can lie if the law provides for it. Under section 7 of the Escheat Regulation Act appeal is provided only against a final order of the Collector passed under section 6(9) of the said Act and not against any others. The present order appeal is admittedly not an order under section 6(9). Therefore this appeal is clearly incompetent. Now we have to consider whether the order of the learned Additional Collector can be interfered with under section 3 of the said Act. Section 3 provided that the general superintendent of all property to which this Act applies is vested in the Collector who should inform himself fully through the Assistant Collector and Tehsildars subordinate to him of all such property and act in the matter, subject to the directions of the Board and the orders of the State Government. This clearly shows that the general superintendence of the Properties to which this Act applies vests in the Collector and the board can also give direction to the Collector. However, these directions can be given for the carrying out of the provisions of the Escheats Regulation Act when it is felt by the Board that those provisions are not being carried out by the Collector or that a general guidance is required to be given. Yadram v. Kabul Singh, 1974 RRD 511. [3] Collector passed final order on dt. 4-5-1971 declaring the disputed property to be escheat and submitting application under section 1 of the Act to D.J. appellant filed appeal on 30-11-1973 contending that he got knowledge of the death of the deceased on 20-9-73 and submitting application for copies on 29-9-73 and obtained copies on 1- 10-73 thus filed appeal on 30-1073. Held appeal was barred by limitations as he ought to have filed appeal latest by 21-10-73 or each days delay have to be explained. There is no sufficient reason to wait for full 30 days appeal held barred by limitation. How appellant came directly to the Board of revenue without putting his objection in lower competent courts is not explained. Smt.Draupadi v. RameshwarDayal1977 RRD