The Indian Treasure Trove Act, 1878: A Scholarly Analysis of its Procedural Framework, Adjudication of Rights, and Judicial Oversight

Introduction

The Indian Treasure Trove Act, 1878 (hereinafter "the Act") is a colonial-era legislation that continues to govern the discovery and disposition of 'treasure' found in India. The Act establishes a procedural mechanism for reporting such finds, determining ownership, and allowing the government to acquire treasures of significance. This article aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the Act, focusing on its key provisions, the procedural framework it mandates, the rights and obligations of various parties involved, and the judicial interpretation of its provisions, drawing heavily from relevant case law and statutory principles of India.

Objectives and Scope of the Indian Treasure Trove Act, 1878

The preamble to the Act states its purpose as "to amend the law relating to Treasure-Trove." The primary objective is to ensure that valuable items hidden and subsequently found are brought to the notice of the authorities, thereby preventing their misappropriation and allowing for the determination of rightful claims. Section 3 of the Act defines "treasure" broadly as "anything of any value hidden in the soil, or in anything affixed thereto." This definition is notably wider than the traditional English common law concept of "treasure trove," which primarily pertained to gold or silver items. As observed in Shyam Bahadur Koeri And Others v. The State . (Patna High Court, 1965), English law defined treasure trove as "where any gold or silver in coin, plate or bullion, is found concealed in a house or in the earth." The Indian Act's expansive definition encompasses a broader range of valuable hidden items.

The Act aims to balance the interests of the finder, the owner of the place where the treasure is found, any original owner who can establish a claim, and the State, which may have an interest in acquiring items of historical or archaeological value.

Procedural Framework under the Act

The Act lays down a detailed procedural framework to be followed upon the discovery of treasure, primarily administered through the office of the Collector of the district.

The Finder's Duty: Notification and Deposit (Section 4)

Section 4 of the Act imposes a crucial obligation on the finder of a treasure. The finder must, "as soon as practicable," give notice to the Collector in writing. This notice must detail the nature and amount or approximate value of the treasure, the place where it was found, and the date of finding. Furthermore, the finder must either deposit the treasure in the nearest Government Treasury or give the Collector such security as the Collector deems fit, to ensure the treasure can be produced when required (Mahendra Kumar And Another v. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, 1987 SCC 3 265; Indian Treasure Trove Act, 1878, S. 4). The significance of this duty was highlighted in Bharat Varshiya Digambar Jain Tirth Kshetriya Committee v. State Of Jharkhand And Others (Jharkhand High Court, 2004), where the court noted the statutory obligation to give notice in writing and deposit the treasure or provide security. Failure to comply with Section 4 can lead to penalties and forfeiture of the finder's share, as discussed under Section 20 of the Act (Bhaktibhai Gopalji Bhakta v. Collector Of Surat And Others, Gujarat High Court, 1984).

The Collector's Role: Inquiry and Notification (Sections 5, 7)

Upon receiving notice from the finder under Section 4, or information from any other source regarding a found treasure (Bharat Varshiya Digambar Jain Tirth Kshetriya Committee v. State Of Jharkhand And Others, 2004), the Collector initiates proceedings. Under Section 5, the Collector, after any preliminary inquiry deemed fit, must publish a notification. This notification requires all persons claiming the treasure, or any part thereof, to appear before the Collector on a specified day and at a specified place. The date for appearance must not be earlier than four months or later than six months after the date of publication of the notification (Mahendra Kumar And Another v. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, 1987; Indian Treasure Trove Act, 1878, S. 5). If the Collector has reason to believe that any person has an interest in the treasure and resides within the jurisdiction, a special notice must also be served on such person (Bhaktibhai Gopalji Bhakta v. Collector Of Surat And Others, 1984, referring to S. 5(b)).

On the notified day, as per Section 7, the Collector must cause the treasure to be produced and conduct an inquiry to determine: (a) the person by whom, the place in which, and the circumstances under which such treasure was found; and (b) as far as possible, the person by whom, and the circumstances under which, such treasure was hidden (Mahendra Kumar And Another v. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, 1987; Shyam Bahadur Koeri And Others v. The State ., 1965). The need for such an inquiry was also invoked in Murti Mandir Nayamaji v. State Of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court, 2019), where the petitioner sought directions for an inquiry under various sections of the Act, including Section 7.

Adjudication of Claims and Declaration of Treasure

Initial Claims and Forfeiture (Section 6)

Section 6 of the Act stipulates that any person claiming a right to the treasure (or part thereof), whether as owner of the place where it was found or otherwise, who fails to appear as required by the Section 5 notification, shall forfeit such right (Mahendra Kumar And Another v. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, 1987; Shyam Bahadur Koeri And Others v. The State ., 1965).

Inquiry into Hiding and Suits by Claimants (Sections 8, 9)

The Collector's inquiry under Section 7 is pivotal for the subsequent course of action. If, based on this inquiry, the Collector believes the treasure was hidden within one hundred years before its finding, by a person who has appeared and claimed it, or by someone under whom such person claims, Section 8 applies. In such a case, the Collector must adjourn the hearing for a period sufficient to allow the claimant to institute a suit in a Civil Court to establish their right to the treasure (Mahendra Kumar And Another v. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, 1987). The age of the treasure can be a significant factor, as seen in Commissioner Of Central Excise & Customs, Jaipur v. Gunwant Lal Godawat (Supreme Court Of India, 2004), where articles were initially treated as antique and over 100 years old.

Conversely, under Section 9, if the Collector sees no reason to believe the treasure was hidden within one hundred years, or if no suit is instituted under Section 8 within the allowed period, or if such a suit is instituted and the plaintiff's claim is finally rejected, the Collector may declare the treasure to be ownerless (Mahendra Kumar And Another v. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, 1987; Shyam Bahadur Koeri And Others v. The State ., 1965). Such a declaration, subject to appeal to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, is final and conclusive.

Disposal of Treasure: Division, Delivery, and Acquisition (Sections 10-12, 16)

Once a declaration under Section 9 is made, or if no one claims to be the owner of the treasure, the Act provides for its disposal. Sections 10, 11, and 12 deal with the division of treasure. If the finder and the owner of the place where the treasure was found are different individuals, and they have no agreement regarding its disposal, Section 12 mandates a division: three-fourths to the finder and the residue (one-fourth) to the owner of the place (Abdul Hussain v. The Government Of Tamil Nadu, Madras High Court, 1994; Bhaktibhai Gopalji Bhakta v. Collector Of Surat And Others, 1984). The Collector has discretion under the proviso to Section 12 to allot the whole or more than a share to one party upon payment of equivalent value to the other, or to sell the treasure by public auction and divide the proceeds (Abdul Hussain v. The Government Of Tamil Nadu, 1994). If no one appears as the owner of the place, the entire treasure may go to the finder, assuming they have complied with the Act's provisions (Shyam Bahadur Koeri And Others v. The State ., 1965).

Section 16 empowers the Government to acquire the treasure on its own behalf by paying compensation equal to the value of the materials plus one-fifth of such value. This provision allows the State to secure items of national importance (Shyam Bahadur Koeri And Others v. The State ., 1965; Abdul Hussain v. The Government Of Tamil Nadu, 1994).

Resolution of Disputes Regarding Ownership of Place (Section 13)

If a dispute arises concerning the ownership of the place where the treasure was found, Section 13 provides that the Collector may postpone the proceedings to allow any claimant to the place to institute a suit in a Civil Court to establish their right (Mahendra Kumar And Another v. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, 1987; Shyam Bahadur Koeri And Others v. The State ., 1965). In Bhaktibhai Gopalji Bhakta v. Collector Of Surat And Others (1984), the Gujarat High Court noted that if the Collector had doubts regarding land ownership, parties could be directed to a Civil Court under Section 13.

Penalties for Contravention (Sections 20, 21)

The Act prescribes penalties for non-compliance. Section 20 is particularly stringent: if a finder fails to give the notice required by Section 4, or fails to deposit or secure the treasure, they forfeit their share of the treasure and may also face imprisonment or a fine, or both. Convictions under Section 20 have been recorded (Sardar v. Emperor, Allahabad High Court, 1934; GOOLDETRI SRINIVASULU REDDI PULAMERA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, Karnataka High Court, 2020; Bandaru Srinivasa Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Telangana High Court, 2017). The forfeiture of the finder's share for non-compliance with Section 4 was affirmed in Bhaktibhai Gopalji Bhakta v. Collector Of Surat And Others (1984). Section 21 penalizes an owner of the place who, knowing of a find, fails to give notice, or abets an offence under Section 20 (Shyam Bahadur Koeri And Others v. The State ., 1965).

Judicial Scrutiny and Interpretation

Indian courts have had several occasions to interpret and apply the provisions of the Treasure Trove Act, 1878, emphasizing procedural integrity and clarifying the rights of parties.

Emphasis on Procedural Compliance

Courts have consistently underscored the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements laid down in the Act. In Bharat Varshiya Digambar Jain Tirth Kshetriya Committee v. State Of Jharkhand And Others (2004), the Jharkhand High Court highlighted the mandatory nature of the finder's obligations under Section 4. The failure to follow prescribed procedures can vitiate proceedings, as seen in Sardar v. Emperor (1934), where a conviction under Section 20 was set aside due to a procedural irregularity in the trial (non-compliance with Section 191 Cr.P.C.). The Gujarat High Court in Bhaktibhai Gopalji Bhakta v. Collector Of Surat And Others (1984) also implicitly stressed procedural correctness by detailing the Collector's duties under Sections 5(b) and 13.

Rights of Finders, Landowners, and the State

The judiciary has clarified the respective rights of finders and landowners. For instance, in Abdul Hussain v. The Government Of Tamil Nadu (1994), the Madras High Court elaborated on the division of treasure under Section 12. In Bhaktibhai Gopalji Bhakta v. Collector Of Surat And Others (1984), it was held that the owner of the land was entitled to their one-fourth share even if the finder forfeited their rights due to non-compliance with Section 4. The State's right to acquire treasure under Section 16, subject to compensation, has also been acknowledged.

Civil Adjudication and Counter-Claims

The Act envisages civil litigation at two stages: under Section 8 (suit by a claimant to establish right to treasure believed hidden within 100 years) and Section 14 (suit by a person claiming the treasure after the Collector declares it ownerless under Section 9). The Supreme Court in Mahendra Kumar And Another v. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others (1987) clarified these provisions. This case also significantly addressed the maintainability of counter-claims in suits related to treasure. The Court held that a counter-claim under Order VIII, Rule 6-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was maintainable even if filed after the written statement, provided the cause of action for the counter-claim had arisen before the filing of the written statement. This interpretation of procedural law in the context of treasure trove disputes has been subsequently noted in cases like Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 2019) and Shivani v. Bherulal (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2025).

Nature of "Treasure" and its Antiquity

As noted earlier, Section 3 of the Act defines "treasure" broadly. The case of Commissioner Of Central Excise & Customs, Jaipur v. Gunwant Lal Godawat (2004) involved articles considered "antique" and over 100 years old, highlighting that treasures found can often have historical or archaeological significance. While the Act itself does not use the term "antique," the age of the treasure (whether hidden within 100 years or more) is critical for proceedings under Sections 8 and 9. The English law perspective, as cited in Shyam Bahadur Koeri And Others v. The State . (1965), focused on gold or silver, but the Indian Act's scope is wider, covering "anything of any value hidden."

Interplay with the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972

While the Indian Treasure Trove Act, 1878, provides the primary legal framework for dealing with found treasures, its operation must be considered in conjunction with the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 (AATA). The AATA aims to preserve and protect antiquities and art treasures, regulate their trade, and prevent smuggling. If a "treasure" found under the 1878 Act also qualifies as an "antiquity" or "art treasure" under the AATA, the provisions of the AATA would additionally apply. This includes potential compulsory acquisition by the government, restrictions on movement, and requirements for registration, as alluded to in Murti Mandir Nayamaji v. State Of Rajasthan (2019), where the petitioner mentioned registration under the AATA. The finding in Commissioner Of Central Excise & Customs, Jaipur v. Gunwant Lal Godawat (2004) that certain articles were "antique" also points to this overlap. The 1878 Act primarily governs the initial discovery, reporting, and determination of immediate rights, while the AATA provides a more specialized regime for items of cultural heritage.

Conclusion

The Indian Treasure Trove Act, 1878, despite its vintage, remains the principal legislation governing the serendipitous discovery of hidden valuables in India. It establishes a structured, albeit complex, procedural mechanism involving finders, landowners, claimants, and the State, administered by the Collector. Judicial interpretations have emphasized the necessity of strict adherence to these procedures and have clarified the rights and obligations of the parties involved. The Act's broad definition of "treasure" and its provisions for state acquisition reflect an early attempt to manage and potentially preserve items of value found concealed. In contemporary times, its application is often intertwined with the objectives of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972, especially when the found treasure possesses historical or cultural significance. A continued understanding and diligent application of the Act are essential for the fair adjudication of rights and the preservation of India's rich heritage that may lie hidden beneath its soil.