IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT W.A.Nos.6016 OF 2015 AND 3299 of 2016 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
1. SMT.SEETHALAKSHMAMMA WIFE OF KAMBADA NARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS NO.1316, 4TH MAIN ROAD 6TH CROSS, CHANDRALAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-40.
2. SRI NARASIMHAMURTHY SON OF LATE NARASIMAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT KENCHANPURA VILLAGE THYAMGONDLU HOBLI NELAMANGALLA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE:562120.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SOMASEKHARA K H, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE CENTRAL OFFICE NARASIMRAJA CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BANGALURU-560001.
3. THE TAHASILDAR NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU -562120.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. I G GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.1 SMT. R ANITHA, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT Nos.2 AND 3) THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION Nos.12406-407/2010 DATED 30/10/2015.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 30.10.2015 in W.P.Nos.12406–12407 of 2010 by which, the writ petitions were rejected, the petitioners are before this Court in these appeals.
2. The first petitioner claims to be the wife and second petitioner claims to be the brother of one Late Kambada Narasaiah. The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging Annexures-A, B and C under which, the first respondent had directed second respondent to forfeit the land belonging to Late Kambada Narasaiah for recovery of a sum of Rs.17,33,254/-. It is noted that Late Kambada Narasaiah was working as (Revenue Collector) Tax Inspector and had misappropriated a sum of Rs.17,33,254/- during his tenure. The said amount was ordered to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. In that process, in respect of 1 acre 7 guntas of land, name of the State Government was entered in Column No.9. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed writ petitions. The learned Single Judge rejected the writ petitions solely on the ground that the first petitioner has not produced or established that she is the wife of Late Kambada Narasaiah and the second petitioner has also not produced any material to indicate that he is the brother of Late Kambada Narasaiah. Further the learned Single Judge has reserved liberty to the petitioners to establish their relationship with the deceased Kambada Narasaiah by instituting appropriate legal proceedings.
3. No material whatsoever is produced before the learned Single Judge to substantiate their contention that the first petitioner is the wife and second petitioner is the brother of Late Kambada Narasaiah. In the appeals also the petitioners have not produced any document nor materials to substantiate their contention. Moreover, the learned Single Judge has reserved liberty to establish their relationship by instituting an appropriate proceedings.
4. In the absence of any material to indicate the relationship of petitioners with Late Kambada Narasaiah under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot determine the relationship of the petitioners with Late Kambada Narasaiah. It is a question of fact, which requires recording of evidence which could be established in an appropriate legal proceedings before the Civil Court. Hence, we find no ground to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the writ appeals are dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms