The petitioner was employed as a bulldozer-operator under the Agricultural Department of Pondicherry. On 1st December, 1971, he was levelling a land in Survey No. 31/1/2 of Sialam Village of Mannadipeth Commune in Villanur Sub Taluk belonging to one Thiru Varada Reddiar of Thirupuvanai. While he was operating the bulldozer, he found the following treasures in the said survey number:

2. As the finder of the said articles and as enjoined by section 4 of the Indian Treasure Trove Act (VI of 1878) hereinafter referred to as the, he informed the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thirupuvanai, and ultimately, the articles were entrusted to the Sub-Inspector of Police to be sent to the Treasury for safe custody. Thereafter, the Government of Pondicherry, the 1st respondent herein, made a notification in the Official Gazette dated 30th June, 1972, under section 5 (a) of the. The owner of the land made a claim over the articles. However, his claim was negatived. His further agitation, including writ proceedings, did not prove fruitful. The articles were declared ownerless under section 9 of the. The petitioner has also been claiming the article;, as the finder of the same under the. Admittedly, no further proceedings as contemplated under section 10 onwards under the have been prosecuted by the Authorities. The petitioner has been making repeated representations claiming the articles as the finder and ultimately, he received the communication dated 18th July, 1978, from the 2nd respondent in Reference No. 16154/75. C. 2, stating that the department to which the petitioner belongs (Agricultural Department of Pondicherry) should be deemed to be the finder of the treasure since the discovery was made by the petitioner during the performance of his duties. It is this order of the 2nd respondent that is being impugned in the present writ petition.

3. May be, at the time when the petitioner found the treasure he was under the employ of the Agricultural Department of the Government of Pondicherry. The question is whether even though the petitioner was the actual finder of the treasure in question, merely because he was under the employ of the Agricultural Department of the Government of Pondicherry, the latter must be the finder under the. The expression finder is not defined in the.

4. In re, Mala Naicker 1 , Sadasiva Aiyar, J., dealt with a case of prosecution under section 20 of thewhere the accused, two coolies working for hire under the eye of their employer turned up a box containing hidden treasure. The treasure was removed by the employer and the accused had no control over it at any time. Yet, the learned Judge held that the accused were the finders within the meaning of the and they were liable for non-compliance with the other conditions imposed on them by section 4 of theand were properly convicted.

5. In Trivenibai v. Emperor 2 , a woman knowing that a box containing ornaments belonging to her had been hidden by her husband in some wall engaged labourers to dig the wall with the expectation that the box would com; out of the wall. The wall was dug and the box came out. The woman took possession of the box from the labourers as soon as it was found claiming it as her own. It was held that as far as the woman was concerned, the articles found were not hidden and she was not a finder as she was aware of the concealment of the ornaments; she was not, therefore, bound to give notice under section 4 of the; and the labourer could, however, be technically said to be a finder for the reason that he was ignorant of the presence or the box embedded in the wall and he was, therefore, bound to give notice under section 4 of theand his failure to do so made him liable under section 20 of the. The learned Judge, Niyoji, J., in that decision, has taken into consideration the meanings of the words finder and find as given in Oxford English Dictionary. The meaning of the word finder is one who comes upon or discovers by chance or search, and the meaning of the word find is to come upon by chance or in the course of events or to discover or attain by search or effort.

6. In Court of Wards v. Iqbal Singh 3 , certain workmen were engaged by a P. W. D. contractor under the Punjab Government and in the course of the execution of the work under the contract, the workmen came across certain treasure. The Collector came to the conclusion that the treasure had been found by the workmen who were engaged in the construction work and not by the Public Works Department contractor and that the latter was not entitled, in any way, to claim any part of the treasure. This was upheld by the Court.

7. The principle deducible from the above decisions is that even though the actual finder is in the employ of another person if in the course of execution of works under such employment certain treasure is found, the person who actually discovers the treasure must be held to be the finder within the meaning of the and not the person who employs the actual finder. The obvious reasoning is the employer is not the person who comes upon or discovers by chance the articles of Treasure. The position would not stand altered merely because the employer happens to be a wing of the State. In the present case, admittedly no claim was made by the Agricultural Department of the Government of Pondicherry pursuant to the notice under section 4 of the. If this is so, by virtue of section 6 of theany such right claimed by such department will stand forfeited. In view of this position it is not possible to countenance the stand taken by the respondent in the impugned communication dated 18th July, 1978.

8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed quashing the communication of the 2nd respondent dated 18th July, 1978 in Reference No. 16154/75.C.2. Since the authorities have not followed further steps as contemplated under the after the declaration under section 9, it is open to them to do so and consider the claims of the petitioner in such proceedings as expeditiously as possible. There will be no order as to costs in this writ petition.