Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6590
RP No. 195 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
REVIEW PETITION NO. 195 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. THE BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
N R SQUARE
BBMP HEAD OFFICE,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
2. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
CHANDRA LAYOUT SUB DIVSION,
TH
CORPORATION COMPLEX, 14 CROSS,
ST
1 STAGE, CHANDRA LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. KARTHIKEYAN B S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. K CHINAYAMURTHY
S/O LATE T N KAMBADANARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO. 108,
SHIVA WOODS APARTMENT
NO. 6 NGEF LAYOUT MAIN ROAD,
NAGARABHAVAI VILLAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 072.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
Digitally signed
by SUMA B N
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6590
RP No. 195 of 2023
HC-KAR
M.S BUILDING,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
K.G ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
4. THE TAHASILDAR
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
NELAMANGALA TOWN,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
DEVANAHALLI,
DODDABALLAPURA ROAD,
DEVANAHALLI - 562 110.
6. SRI. M N VENUGOPAL
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 347/A,
TH
10 MAIN ROAD,
ST
PHASE 1, BANASHANKARI 1 STAGE,
HANUMANTHA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 050.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT M.,ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA., AGA FOR R2 TO R5;
V/O DATED 07.02.2025, NOTICE TO R6 IS DISPENSED WITH
FOR TIME BEING)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1
R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE
ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN W.P. NO.
2121/2022 (LB-BMP) DATED 22.11.2022 (ANNEXURE-A) AS
PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6590
RP No. 195 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
This review petition seeking review of the order dated
22.11.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.2121/2022, in
which petitioners herein were the respondents. The said writ
petition was filed by the son of one T.N.Kambadanarasaiah
seeking quash of notice dated 31.12.2021, by which said
T.N.Kambadanarasiah was held liable to pay Rs.17,33,254/-.
Upon submissions being made by the learned counsel for
petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent-BBMP
therein, referring to documents, this Court by a detailed order
came to the conclusion that the respondent- BBMP therein had
failed to establish its ground with regard to its claim of
Rs.17,33,254/-.
2. Learned counsel for review petitioners seeking review
of the said order, submits that the respondent-BBMP/petitioner
herein could not bring to the notice of this Court documents
pertaining to the said sum of Rs.17,33,254/- by the time of
disposal of said writ petition. He also draws attention of this
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6590
RP No. 195 of 2023
HC-KAR
Court to Annexure-F, which is a notice dated 19.07.2003
produced in the said writ petition to contend that there was
indeed reference to Rs.17,33,254/- in the said notice.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners files a memo along
with 13 documents. Document No.1 is a complaint given by
the Assistant Revenue Officer of BBMP on 12.02.1999 to
Inspector of police, K.R.Market Police station alleging
misappropriation of funds by deceased T.N.Kambadanarasaiah
to the tune of Rs.17,33,254/- between 05.12.1994 and
29.01.1997 while he was discharging his duty as tax collector
at K.R.Market. Document No.2 is First Information Report
registered in Crime No.46/1999 against Kambadanarasaiah in
respect of the said amount which is later given CC
No.8888/1999. Document No.5 is record pertaining to
departmental enquiry. Referring to these documents he
submits that during the pendency of the said criminal
proceedings and also the departmental enquiry said
Kambadanarasaiah expired and the proceedings came to a
standing halt. He also relies upon the statement of account
prepared by the team of audit of respondent- BBMP to contend
that the said team on verification of records have come to the
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6590
RP No. 195 of 2023
HC-KAR
conclusion of Kambadanarasaiah having misappropriated
Rs.17,33,254/-. He submits that these material documents
could not be brought to the notice of the Court at the time of
disposal of the writ petition. Therefore seeks for allowing of the
petition.
4. In response, learned counsel for
petitioner/respondent No.1 submits that even from the
documents now produced, it is not clear whether there was any
specific and categorical determination of liability on
Kambadanarasaiah. Admittedly, since Kambadanarasaiah
passed away during enquiry, he submits, that the petitioners
cannot take advantage of the situation to hold
Kambadanarasaiah to have misappropriated funds. He also
refers to a letter issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, City
Market Police to the Revenue Officer produced at page 5 of the
document to the memo and the office notings at page 14 and
submits that apart from said Kambadanarasaiah there were
other persons involved in the said misappropriation and no
details of their involvement is forthcoming. Therefore, he
submits that on the basis of incomplete documents the
petitioners cannot be allowed to reopen the matter which is
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6590
RP No. 195 of 2023
HC-KAR
already concluded. He submits that remedy available to the
petitioners if any is to institute a suit and establishing its claim
and not on the basis of the incomplete report.
5. Heard perused the records.
6. This Court while disposing of the petition had
observed that respondent-BBMP therein had not produced any
document with regard to Rs.17,33,254/- and had also referred
to the charge sheet/enquiry report of respondent-BBMP where
there was no reference to the said amount. Therefore, it came
to the conclusion that respondent-BBMP had failed to establish
the grounds to claim Rs.17,33,254/-. There is no dispute that
the documents now sought to produce were not brought to
notice of this Court.
7. Perusal of the documents now sought to be produced
as noted above, would indicate that there was an allegation of
Kambadanarasaiah misappropriating Rs.17,33,254/-. They also
indicate that a criminal case having been registered against him
and departmental enquiry being conducted against the said
Kambadanarasaiah. Office Notings dated 04.02.2003 produced
at page 15 would indicate that said Kambadanarasaiah had
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6590
RP No. 195 of 2023
HC-KAR
expired resulting in said the proceedings coming to a standstill.
Admittedly, nothing has proceeded further. Even if these
materials are taken on record, that would not alter or change
the order which is sought to reviewed, inasmuch as the
disciplinary proceedings against Kambadanarasaiah has
remained incomplete. As rightly pointed out by the learned
counsel for respondent No.1, remedy, if any, to the BBMP is to
seek recourse under the general law for recovery of money. No
error therefore can be found in the order already passed.
8. Learned counsel for petitioners at this juncture seeks
liberty to avail alternative remedy by initiating appropriate
proceedings.
9. Reserving liberty to the petitioner-BBMP to initiate
proceedings for recovery of the amount of Rs.17,33,254/- as
may be available and permissible under law, this review
petition is dismissed.
SD/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
SBN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1
NC: 2026:KHC:6590
RP No. 195 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
REVIEW PETITION NO. 195 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. THE BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
N R SQUARE
BBMP HEAD OFFICE,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
2. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
CHANDRA LAYOUT SUB DIVSION,
TH
CORPORATION COMPLEX, 14 CROSS,
ST
1 STAGE, CHANDRA LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. KARTHIKEYAN B S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. K CHINAYAMURTHY
S/O LATE T N KAMBADANARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO. 108,
SHIVA WOODS APARTMENT
NO. 6 NGEF LAYOUT MAIN ROAD,
NAGARABHAVAI VILLAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 072.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
Digitally signed
by SUMA B N
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6590
RP No. 195 of 2023
HC-KAR
M.S BUILDING,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
K.G ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
4. THE TAHASILDAR
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
NELAMANGALA TOWN,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
DEVANAHALLI,
DODDABALLAPURA ROAD,
DEVANAHALLI - 562 110.
6. SRI. M N VENUGOPAL
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 347/A,
TH
10 MAIN ROAD,
ST
PHASE 1, BANASHANKARI 1 STAGE,
HANUMANTHA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 050.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT M.,ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA., AGA FOR R2 TO R5;
V/O DATED 07.02.2025, NOTICE TO R6 IS DISPENSED WITH
FOR TIME BEING)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1
R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE
ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN W.P. NO.
2121/2022 (LB-BMP) DATED 22.11.2022 (ANNEXURE-A) AS
PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6590
RP No. 195 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
This review petition seeking review of the order dated
22.11.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.2121/2022, in
which petitioners herein were the respondents. The said writ
petition was filed by the son of one T.N.Kambadanarasaiah
seeking quash of notice dated 31.12.2021, by which said
T.N.Kambadanarasiah was held liable to pay Rs.17,33,254/-.
Upon submissions being made by the learned counsel for
petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent-BBMP
therein, referring to documents, this Court by a detailed order
came to the conclusion that the respondent- BBMP therein had
failed to establish its ground with regard to its claim of
Rs.17,33,254/-.
2. Learned counsel for review petitioners seeking review
of the said order, submits that the respondent-BBMP/petitioner
herein could not bring to the notice of this Court documents
pertaining to the said sum of Rs.17,33,254/- by the time of
disposal of said writ petition. He also draws attention of this
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6590
RP No. 195 of 2023
HC-KAR
Court to Annexure-F, which is a notice dated 19.07.2003
produced in the said writ petition to contend that there was
indeed reference to Rs.17,33,254/- in the said notice.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners files a memo along
with 13 documents. Document No.1 is a complaint given by
the Assistant Revenue Officer of BBMP on 12.02.1999 to
Inspector of police, K.R.Market Police station alleging
misappropriation of funds by deceased T.N.Kambadanarasaiah
to the tune of Rs.17,33,254/- between 05.12.1994 and
29.01.1997 while he was discharging his duty as tax collector
at K.R.Market. Document No.2 is First Information Report
registered in Crime No.46/1999 against Kambadanarasaiah in
respect of the said amount which is later given CC
No.8888/1999. Document No.5 is record pertaining to
departmental enquiry. Referring to these documents he
submits that during the pendency of the said criminal
proceedings and also the departmental enquiry said
Kambadanarasaiah expired and the proceedings came to a
standing halt. He also relies upon the statement of account
prepared by the team of audit of respondent- BBMP to contend
that the said team on verification of records have come to the
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6590
RP No. 195 of 2023
HC-KAR
conclusion of Kambadanarasaiah having misappropriated
Rs.17,33,254/-. He submits that these material documents
could not be brought to the notice of the Court at the time of
disposal of the writ petition. Therefore seeks for allowing of the
petition.
4. In response, learned counsel for
petitioner/respondent No.1 submits that even from the
documents now produced, it is not clear whether there was any
specific and categorical determination of liability on
Kambadanarasaiah. Admittedly, since Kambadanarasaiah
passed away during enquiry, he submits, that the petitioners
cannot take advantage of the situation to hold
Kambadanarasaiah to have misappropriated funds. He also
refers to a letter issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, City
Market Police to the Revenue Officer produced at page 5 of the
document to the memo and the office notings at page 14 and
submits that apart from said Kambadanarasaiah there were
other persons involved in the said misappropriation and no
details of their involvement is forthcoming. Therefore, he
submits that on the basis of incomplete documents the
petitioners cannot be allowed to reopen the matter which is
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6590
RP No. 195 of 2023
HC-KAR
already concluded. He submits that remedy available to the
petitioners if any is to institute a suit and establishing its claim
and not on the basis of the incomplete report.
5. Heard perused the records.
6. This Court while disposing of the petition had
observed that respondent-BBMP therein had not produced any
document with regard to Rs.17,33,254/- and had also referred
to the charge sheet/enquiry report of respondent-BBMP where
there was no reference to the said amount. Therefore, it came
to the conclusion that respondent-BBMP had failed to establish
the grounds to claim Rs.17,33,254/-. There is no dispute that
the documents now sought to produce were not brought to
notice of this Court.
7. Perusal of the documents now sought to be produced
as noted above, would indicate that there was an allegation of
Kambadanarasaiah misappropriating Rs.17,33,254/-. They also
indicate that a criminal case having been registered against him
and departmental enquiry being conducted against the said
Kambadanarasaiah. Office Notings dated 04.02.2003 produced
at page 15 would indicate that said Kambadanarasaiah had
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6590
RP No. 195 of 2023
HC-KAR
expired resulting in said the proceedings coming to a standstill.
Admittedly, nothing has proceeded further. Even if these
materials are taken on record, that would not alter or change
the order which is sought to reviewed, inasmuch as the
disciplinary proceedings against Kambadanarasaiah has
remained incomplete. As rightly pointed out by the learned
counsel for respondent No.1, remedy, if any, to the BBMP is to
seek recourse under the general law for recovery of money. No
error therefore can be found in the order already passed.
8. Learned counsel for petitioners at this juncture seeks
liberty to avail alternative remedy by initiating appropriate
proceedings.
9. Reserving liberty to the petitioner-BBMP to initiate
proceedings for recovery of the amount of Rs.17,33,254/- as
may be available and permissible under law, this review
petition is dismissed.
SD/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
SBN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1