HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA W.P. No.9640 of 2005 Date:11-2-2008 Between: Achanta Lakshmipathi.. … Appellants. and Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, State of Karnataka and others. … Respondents. :JUDGMENT: Per Anil R. Dave, CJ Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the parties and looking to the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that father of the petitioner viz., Achanta Ramanadham had deposited a sum of Rs.6.00 lakhs with Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore in O.A.No.131 of 1997 for purchase of agricultural land. However, it appears that the sale effected in favour of the petitioner’s father had been ultimately set aside by the appellate authority. Thus, the amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs deposited by the petitioner’s father ought to have been returned to him. It is not in dispute that the amount has not been returned to the petitioner’s father. Sri Ravindra Babu, learned advocate appearing for Respondent No.4 – State Bank of Hyderabad, Chikalthana Branch, Aurangabad has submitted that though a cheque for Rs.6.00 lakhs had been received by Respondent No.4-Bank from the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, the same has not been enchased. So, Respondent No.4 has received no amount and as such the amount is still lying with the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore only. Facts reveal that after the amount had been deposited with the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore and the sale had been set aside by the appellate authority, petitioner’s father expired and, therefore, the amount could not be paid to petitioner’s father. Petitioner, therefore has approached this court with a prayer that the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore be directed to return the amount to him as he, being the legal heir of late Ramanadham, is entitled to receive the said amount. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that when an application had been submitted by the petitioner for return of the amount before the Debt Recovery Tribunal Bangalore, the same had not been accepted and the petitioner was orally informed to approach the Debt recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. In pursuance of notice issued by this Court, no appearance has been filed on behalf of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore. Looking to the facts of the case, it is directed that the amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs deposited by late Achanta Ramanadham be returned to his heirs after following necessary formalities as required by law. The amount shall be returned by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore- Respondent No.2, Bangalore within a period of four weeks from the date on which the petitioner establishes that he has lawful claim over the amount lying with the Debt Recovery Tribunal to the credit of O.A.No.131 of 1997. The Writ Petition stands disposed of above and Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 11th February, 2008 GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J vtv