Dismissed

Sri Nagaraja Investments Pvt. Ltd., v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Sept 2021WP/12403/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging the mandatory linking of property tax to guideline values under the Karnataka Stamp Act. The petitioners sought to quash the relevant Act provision and notifications. The court held the petitions lacked merit due to prior final judgments and dismissed them, largely acquiescing to the plea of exemplary costs.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the writ petitions with exemplary costs imposed on the petitioners.

Sri Nagaraja Investments Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.12403/2012 (LB-TAX)

¶7

C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.42850/2011 (LB-TAX)

¶9

IN WRIT PETITION No.12403/2012

¶10

BETWEEN

¶11

SRI NAGARAJA INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., SRI.NAGARAJA THEATRE KABIR ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU – 570 001 (REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.N.S. PRASAD)

¶12

G.S. MAHAVEER AGED 63 YEARS PROPRIETOR RAJ KAMAL THEATRE NO.20, INDIRANAGAR NEW EXTENSION, NEAR RACE COURSE CIRCLE, ITTEGUDU, MYSURU – 570 010. (REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER MR.G.N.JEEVAN KUMAR)

¶13

MR. M.B. RAMESH, AGED 63 YEARS PROPRIETOR SANGAM THEATRE

¶14

¶15

NO.222, NEETHI MARG, SIDDARTHA LAYOUT, MYSURU – 570 011 (REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER MR.RAJIV B.URS)

¶16

SMT. N. LALITHAMMA, AGED 74 YEARS W/O LATE S.K. RANGAIAH, PROPRIETOR, M/S STERLING THEATRE, INDUSTRIAL SUB-URB, MYSURU – 570 008.

¶17

... PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI M.ARUN PONAPPA, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶19

AND

¶20

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶21

DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL ADMINISTRATION SRI. M. VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWERS AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶22

COMMISSIONER MYSORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE MYSURU.

¶23

... RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2 (PHYSICAL HEARING);

¶25

SMT.GEETHA DEVI M.P., ADVOCATE FOR R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶26

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH SEC.109 OF THE KMC ACT TO THE EXTENT IT MAKES IT OBLIGATORY TO LIKE THE PROPERTY TAX WITH THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY U/S.45-B OF THE KARANATKA STAMP ACT 1957.

¶28

IN WRIT PETITION No.42850/2011

¶29

BETWEEN

¶30

RATTEHALLI RAMAPPA & SONS M/S PRABHA PICTURE HOUSE, OLD BANK ROAD, MYSURU - 570 001 ( REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR.R.N.PRATHAP)

¶31

M/S LAKSHMI TALKIES CHAMARAJA DOUBLE ROAD, MYSURU – 570 024 (REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR.C.S.SUBRAMANIAN)

¶32

M/S WOODLANDS COMPANY (WOODLANDS THEATRE) NO.2722, CURZON PARK ROAD, LASKAR MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 001 (REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR.B.R.VENKATACHALA)

¶33

M/S SHANTHALA THEATRE KSHETRAYYA 8^TH CROSS ROAD, K R MOHALLA MYSURU - 570 024 (REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR.N.T.PADAKI)

¶34

¶35

RAMBHAI PATEL & SONS M/S RANJIT THEATRE 2730, NEW NO. 4, B.N.ROAD, LASHKAR MOHALLA, MYSURU. (REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR M.R. PATEL)

¶36

M/S SARASWATHI THEATRE NEW KANTHARAJE URS ROAD SARASWATHIPURAM MYSURU - 570 009 (REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR.K.B.HARISH)

¶37

M.C.THIMMAIAHACHAR FAMILY TRUST GAYATHRI TALKIES, CHAMARAJ DOUBLE ROAD, MYSURU - 570 024 (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR M.R. RAJARAM) ... PETITIONERS

¶38

(BY SRI M.ARUN PONAPPA, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶39

AND

¶40

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶41

DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL ADMINISTRATION SRI M.VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWERS AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶42

¶43

COMMISSIONER MYSORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE MYSURU

¶44

... RESPONDENTS

¶45

(BY SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2 (PHYSICAL HEARING),

¶46

SMT.GEETHA DEVI M.P., ADVOCATE FOR R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶47

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH SECTION 109 OF THE KMC ACT TO THE EXTENT IT MAKES IT OBLIGATORY TO LIKE THE PROPERTY TAX WITH THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER SECTION 45-B OF THE KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.,

¶48

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

The petitioners in W.P.No.12403/2012 have sought for the

¶51

following prayers:

¶52

“a) Quash Section 109 of the KMC Act to the extent it makes it obligatory to like the property tax with the guideline value of the property under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.

¶53

¶54

b) Quash Annexure ‘A’, the Public Notification No.H.A.PR34/2004-2005, dated 12/12/2006 issued by third respondent Mysore Mahanagara Palike.

¶55

c) Quash the guidelines/compendium of the property tax Annexure ‘B’ ªÀå¸ÁE34±Á¸À£À2003 ¢:20/08/2003 DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀA.ªÀå±ÁE 44 ±Á¸À£À 2004 ¢:7/3/05 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ËgÁqÀ½vÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛÃ¯É

¶56

¸ÀASÉå:¥É¤.J¸ï.J.J¸ï.56/05-06 ¢:2/09/05gÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¢£ÁAPÀ 08/12/06gÀ ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ DqÀ½vÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À £ÀqÀªÀ½ C£ÀéAiÀÄ issued by the third respondent Mysore Mahanagara Palike for the year 200708, which has been followed for the subsequent years upto date and to direct the third respondent to follow uniform procedure of imposition of property tax under the SAS Scheme on the lines issued by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike.

¶57

d) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶58

¶59

Identical prayer is sought in the companion writ petition as well.

¶60

The prayer is with regard to quashing Section 109 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act insofar as it demands property tax upon the petitioners and the like linking it to guidance value of the property in terms of Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.

¶61

Heard Sri.M.Arun Ponappa, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Smt.Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Smt.Geetha Devi.M.P, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 in both the petitions.

¶62

These very petitioners had preferred writ petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos.2292-2300/2004 which came to be disposed by an order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.02.2004 with a direction to re-determine the property tax payable and until then, a direction was issued to receive

¶63

¶64

property tax from the petitioners at the then existing rate. Identical orders were passed in several writ petitions.

¶65

This order was called in question by both, the petitioners and the State, in W.A.Nos.3977-3978/2003 & connected matters . The Division Bench, by its order dated 02.03.2010 , upheld the manner in which the tax is demanded by the respondents and allowed the appeals filed by the State and dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners. This decision has attained finality.

¶66

It further transpires that the very petitioners again approached this Court in W.P.No.20361/2007 , which came to be dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench by order dated 26.07.2010 , on the ground that the aforesaid writ appeal covered the issue. This dismissal becomes final.

¶67

The petitioners have again knocked the doors of this Court, in the subject writ petitions, seeking the afore-quoted

¶68

¶69

prayers, notwithstanding the rejection of their claim by the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge (supra) . Therefore, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

¶70

However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners plead that the petitioners are already overburdened with the amount of tax demanded and are likely to be impoverished. This Court is holding its hands to impose exemplary costs and dismiss the writ petitions.

¶71

For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petitions being devoid

¶72

of merit, are dismissed.

¶73

Sd/JUDGE

¶74

bkp CT:MJ

Sri Nagaraja Investments Pvt. Ltd., v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nagaraja Investments Pvt. Ltd., v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T K Abdul Javeed Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Suresh Kumar K G Vs State by Town Police

Sri. Y. Shashidar Yallapur Vs the State of Karnataka

Korma Janangada Vs Mysore Urban Development Authority

M/S Kamdhenu Labels Private Ltd. Vs the Commissioner

Mrs. K S Latha Vs the Commissioner