Disposed

Smt Saraswathi v. the Commissioner Bangalore Bruhath Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC29 Sept 2021WP/7580/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The course of this judgment involves a case where the petitioner, a co-owner of property in dispute with a builder, sought direction from the High Court for khata transfer and tax collection. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation regarding tax collection.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27-01-2020 and collect tax, to be complied with within four months.

Smt Saraswathi Vs the Commissioner Bangalore Bruhath… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.7580 OF 2021 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SMT.SARASWATHI W/O LATE SRI A A RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 73 YEARS, R/AT NO.G004, JAIN’S CAMBRIDGE NO.16/2, CAMBRIDGE ROAD, ULSOOR, BENGALURU – 560 008.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SRINIVASA K.N., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶11

AND

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE BRUHATH MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (EAST) BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU – 560 025.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER DOMLUR RANGE, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU – 560 007.

¶15

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANJUNATHA V. RAYAPPA , ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD 27.01.2020 VIDE ANNX-H; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO COLLECT THE TAX RIGHT FROM THE YEAR 2014-15 IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES WITHOUT IMPOSING ANY PENALTY.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶21

prayers:

¶22

“(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to consider the representation dated 27-01-2020 produced at Annexure-H to the petition forthwith and;

¶23

(b) Issue a direction directing the respondent to collect the tax right from the year 2014-15 in respect of the schedule properties without imposing any penalty and;

¶24

(c) grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

¶25

The petitioner is the wife of one late A.A.Ramachandran

¶26

who is one of the three co-owners of the property bearing Municipal No.16/2, Cambridge Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore along

¶27

¶28

with others. The said property was entrusted to Jain Housing Construction Limited for construction of 18 apartments under the Joint Development Agreement. Jain Housing Construction Limited had violated few clauses of the Joint Development Agreement which led to certain disputes between the parties. The petitioner comes in possession of the petition schedule property by way of a gift deed made by A.A.Ramachandran on 7-10-2006 in respect of two flats bearing No.FS-007 and FS-008 as described in the schedule. After the aforesaid gift, Sri A.A.RAmachandran had also executed a Will dated 10-12-2015 in respect of flat bearing No.G-004. The respondents/BBMP despite the representation given by the petitioner failed to transfer khata in the name of purchasers of 9 flats from the developer. The purchasers approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 619-632 of 2011. This Court by an order dated 03-04-2013 passed the following order:

¶29

“9. Keeping the said observations made by this Court in view and also taking note of the contention of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that the very issue relating to the grant of licence in favour of the Builder is in dispute, the same requires to be considered in appropriate proceedings. Those are all

¶30

¶31

aspects which would be taken note by the appropriate authorities as well as the Arbitrator/Civil Court in the proceedings which are pending. In such circumstance, where merely because there is dispute between the contesting respondents herein and the Builder who has executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioners, whether the sale deeds could be ignored for the purpose of grant of khatha in their favour and whether the second respondent was justified.

¶32

10. In this regard, a perusal of the impugned order would disclose that respondent No.2 in fact has sought to adjudicate the rights of the parties inasmuch as insofar as three persons as indicated in paragraph 19 of the order, it has been accepted by respondent No.2 that they are bona fide purchasers having purchased the property prior to the date of the Power of Attorney being withdrawn. In respect of the persons whose names have been indicated in paragraph 20 of the order, it has been stated that the flats have been purchased subsequent to the cancellation of the General Power of Attorney. In my opinion, respondent No.2 could not have arrived at such conclusion on that aspect of the matter since the very validity of the withdrawal of the General Power of Attorney and as to whether the Builder could have thereafter executed the sale deeds and as to whether he was only an imposter who had no right to execute the sale deeds are all issues which would have to be decided in the arbitration proceedings. Until the said proceedings are concluded and the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners are held to be bad, the said sale deeds cannot be ignored. Therefore, respondent No.2 at this juncture could not have rejected the request of the petitioners.

¶33

11. However, the interest of all the parties also requires to be protected. For the purpose of retention of revenue documents, even when the khatha is to be granted in favour of the petitioners and the assessment is to be made and the taxes are to be collected from

¶34

¶35

them, the grant of such khatha in any event would remain subject to the result of the main dispute between the contesting respondents herein and the Builder. Therefore, on such decision reaching a conclusion and if the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners are held to be bad in law, certainly at that stage, the contesting respondents would have the liberty of reapproaching respondent No.2 seeking reversal of the entries made in favour of the petitioners. Such right in any event is reserved to the contesting respondents herein.

¶36

12. Further even during the subsistence of the said disputes, to protect not only the interest of the parties herein but also the interest of third parties, it would be appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to make entries in the khatha register as well as in the extracts that would be issued to the parties relating to the pending arbitration/civil proceedings before the Arbitrator and the proceedings before the Civil Court between the contesting respondents and the Builder. In this regard, liberty is reserved to the contesting respondents to provide details of the pending arbitration or such other legal proceedings relating to the same dispute to respondent No.2 along with a representation and respondent No.2 would thereafter make such entries. On being satisfied that the disputes relating to the properties which were pending in any one of the forums have reached completion, entries made in that regard would be regulated by respondent No.2. Hence, the order dated 17.08.2010 impugned herein stands quashed with a direction to respondent No.2 to grant khatha in favour of the petitioners within six weeks from the date on which a copy is submitted.”

¶37

Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, khata in respect of 9

¶38

flats of the respective purchasers is changed in the names of all those persons, except the petitioner, after which, the petitioner

¶39

¶40

gave a representation on 27-01-2020 producing all other documents that are necessary for transfer of khata. That having not been considered, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶41

Heard Sri.Srinivasa.K.N., learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Manjunatha.V.Rayappa, learned counsel appearing for respondents.

¶42

The learned counsel representing the respondents would submit that if a reasonable time is granted, the representation of the petitioner would be considered, the documents would be looked into and khata of the property would be transferred in the name of the petitioner, if all the documents are in place and in accordance with law.

¶43

Placing this submission of the learned counsel for the respondents/BBMP on record, I deem it appropriate, without going into merits of the matter, to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondents/BBMP to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27-01-2020 as also, the prayer of the

¶44

¶45

petitioner for collecting tax on the property. This direction of consideration of the representation and the other prayer of the petitioner for collecting tax shall be complied with by the respondents/BBMP within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶46

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

bkp CT:MJ

Smt Saraswathi v. the Commissioner Bangalore Bruhath Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Saraswathi v. the Commissioner Bangalore Bruhath Mahanagara Palike

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

Dr. (Mrs.) Chitralekha. M. R. Vs Mysuru City Corporation

Ms Sangeetha Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M S Shiva Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sivasankaran Krishnan Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

M/S August Ventures Private Limited Vs the Commissioner

Miss N Parvathi Vs the Commissioner