K.S. Lodha, J.
It appears that some proceddings for recovery under the Land Revenue Act in relation to some dues of the forest department were pending before the Tehsilder, Bhinmal againest one Malook Chand s/o Nathu Lal Modi of village Pavti. On 28.3.76, the said Malook Chand had gone to Bhinmal in Jee No. RJL, 8474 and the Tehsilder attached this jeep in those recovery proceedings and took possession of the same. The present. petitioner Ratan lal who is brother of the said Malook Chand claims to be the owner of this jeep. He has filed a true copy of the registation certificate which is Ex.2 on the record which shows that this jeep originally stood in the name of M/s Metal Corporation of India Limited, Udaipur but had been changing hands and the last endorsement of transfer stands in the name of the present petitioner Ratan lal s/o Nathu lal Agarwal. he filed an objection to this attachment on 31.3.76 and also sent a telegram to the Tehsildar Bhinmal through Collector, jalore on 20.4.76 for releaseof the jeep. Copies of which have been produced and marker Ex. 3 and 4 respecttively. The case of the petitioner is that despite these objections and request of releasing the jeep, the Tehsildar, Bhinmal or the Collector, jalore did not either release the jeep nor gave any reply to the petitioner and have thus wrongfully deprived the petitioners of this jeep. He has, therefore, filed this writ petition praying that the order of seizure of the jeep dated 28.3.76 may be quashed and direction may be issued to the non-petitioners to release the jeep. Along with the writ application he also filed a stay application on which the jeep was directed to be handed over to him pending the disposal of the writ petition on his furnishing security in a sum of Rs. 13,009.56 and it is stated by the learned Counsel that the jeep has been handed ever to him as he had furnished the required security. This stay order had been confirmed after hearing learned Government Adovocate on 28-7-76.
2. Non-petitioners have not chosen to file any reply.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Government Advocate.
4. The affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the writ application stating the above facts has not been controverted and this affidavit further' stands corroborated by the copy of the registration certificate Ex.2, therefore, there is no room for doubt that the jeep in question belongs to the petitioner Ratan Lal. There are no recovery proceedings against Ratan Lal and this jeep could not have been seized and attached in any proceeding against his brother Milo Chand unless it was shown that Malook Chand had any interest or share in the ownership of this jeep. There is nothing to show that Malook Chand has any right to this jeep, therefore, this jeep could not have been attached merely because Malook Chand happened to travel in this jeep to Bhinmal. It is strange that despite petitionees objection to the seizure and attachment vide Ex. 3 and 4 the authorities did not consider the matter and did not release the jeep or put forward any material even before this Court to show that the jeep was liable to attachment in the proceedings of recovery against Malook Chand. In this circumstances by this seizure and attachment the petitioner Ratan Lal has clearly been deprived of the property without due process of law and therefore, such an attachment or seizure cannot be maintained.
5. I, therefore, accept this writ application and quash the order of the seizure of his jeep dated 28-3-76 (sic) The jeep has already been handed over to the petitioner and the security given by him in pursuance of the stay order shall stand discharged. Since the State has not filed any reply, I shall leave the parties to bear their own costs.