Allowed

Sri. Praveen S. Reddy v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2022WP/14526/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition quashing BBMP's endorsement that conditioned property tax registration on providing a layout plan. The Court held that Section 114 requires entry of the transferee's name regardless of development status, with plan approval required separately under TCPA.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned endorsement quashed; respondents directed to enter petitioner's name in property tax register within eight weeks.

Sri. Praveen S. Reddy Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO.14526/2015 (LB-BMP)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI PRAVEEN S. REDDY S/O R. SRINIVAS REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT 810, 10TH CROSS, 10TH MAIN, INDIRANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 038. ...PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI M.S. VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE NR SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002, BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶10

ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER

¶11

HORAMAVU SUB-DIVISION, BBMP, BANGALORE-560 016. …RESPONDENTS

¶12

(BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 20.12.2014 ISSUED BY THE R-2 (ANNEXUREA); DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REGISTER THE PETITIONER AS THE OWNER AND KATHADAR OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION I.E. THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN ITS REGISTERS AND ETC.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 30.09.2022 FOR ORDERS AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner claims to have purchased the property being a portion of BBMP katha No.9/113, KTR/43/14-15, Ward No.25, Kowdenahalli, in residentially converted Sy.No.133 measuring east by 112 feet, west by 168 feet, north by 128 feet and south by 112 feet and totally measuring 16800 sq. feet from the original owner viz: V Satish by a registered sale deed dated 31.10.2014.

¶18

The petitioner submitted an application with the 2^nd respondent to enter his name in the property tax register maintained by the Bengaluru Bruhat Mahanagara Palike (for short BBMP’) as specified under Section 114(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. (for short KMC Act 1976’). The 2^nd respondent issued an endorsement dated 20.12.2014 stating that the application submitted by the petitioner will be considered only upon furnishing of copy of the approved plan. Taking exception to the same, this writ petition is filed

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased the subject property which is an undeveloped land forming a portion of residential

¶20

¶21

converted land in Sy.No.113 and there is no requirement for obtaining prior approval from the competent Authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. Hence, the impugned endorsement issued by the 2^nd respondent is contrary to Section 114(3) of the KMC Act.

¶22

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the katha in respect of the entire extent of converted land is standing in the name of the original owner and the katha can be bifurcated only if the layout plan has been approved by the Planning Authority. She further submits that the petitioner is required to set apart the portion of the subject property for road, park etc. and in the absence of approved plan, the application submitted by the petitioner cannot be considered.

¶23

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶24

6. It is undisputed that the petitioner has only purchased the portion of the residential converted land through a registered sale deed and the said property purchased is not a developed property. Section 114 of the KMC Act reads thus:

¶25

¶26

“114. Obligation of transferor and transferee to give notice of transfer.- (1) Whenever the title of any person primarily liable to the payment of the property tax on any premises to or over such premises is transferred, the person whose title is transferred and the person to whom the same is transferred shall, within three months after the execution of the instrument of transfer or after its registration if it be registered or after the transfer is effected, if no instrument be executed, give notice of such transfer to the Commissioner.

¶27

(2) In the event of the death of any person primarily liable as aforesaid, the person to whom the title of the deceased shall be transferred as heir or otherwise shall give notice of such transfer to the Commissioner within one year from the death of the deceased.

¶28

[(3) Whenever such transfer comes to the knowledge of the Commissioner or authorised officer through such notice the name of the transferee shell be entered in the property tax register.]

¶29

(4) Every person who makes a transfer as aforesaid without giving such notice to the Commissioner shall, in addition to any other liability which he may incur through such neglect, continue to be liable for the payment of the property tax assessed on the premises transferred until he gives notice or until the transfer shall have been recorded in the corporation registers, but nothing in this section shall be held to affect,-

¶30

(a) the liability of the transferee for the payment of the said tax, or

¶31

(b) the prior charge of the corporation under section 111.

¶32

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in respect of any building or land belonging to the City of Mysore Improvement Trust Board, the Bangalore Development Authority or the Karnataka Housing Board or any local authority the possession of which has been delivered to any person in pursuance of any grant, allotment or lease by the Board or local authority concerned, the transfer of title of any person primarily liable to the payment of property tax shall not be recorded in the corporation registers without consulting the Board or local authority concerned.”

¶33

¶34

A reading of Section 114 of the KMC Act, 1976 indicates that a transferee within three months from the date of execution of registered instrument is required to give notice of such transfer to the Commissioner and when such transfer comes to the knowledge of the Commissioner, the name of the transferee shall be entered in the property tax register.

¶35

The aforesaid provision does not indicate that the petitioner is required to seek approval of the plan before purchasing the portion of the fully converted land. The apprehension of the respondent – BBMP is that if the name of the petitioner is entered in the property tax register, he will develop the subject property without leaving any portion of the subject property towards road, park, etc. Such apprehension is unfounded because, the petitioner before development of the subject property is required to take approval from the competent Authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 or Bangalore Development Authority and at the time of approval, the competent Authority can always impose such conditions as prescribed under the provisions of law.

¶36

¶37

9. In view of preceding analysis, I am of the considered view that the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent – BBMP is contrary to Section 114 of the KMC Act, 1976. The purpose of entering the name of the petitioner in the property tax register is only for the purpose of collection of property tax from the occupier/owner of property. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i) Writ petition is allowed;

¶40

ii) The impugned endorsement dated 20.12.2014 issued by the 2^nd respondent at Annexure-A is hereby quashed;

¶41

iii) The respondents are directed to enter the name of the petitioner as owner and kathedar in the property tax register maintained in respect of the schedule property as specified under Section 114 of the KMC Act, 1976/Section 149 of the BBMP Act, 2020, which is para materia with Section 114 of the KMC Act, 1976. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶42

¶43

iv) It is needless to state that this order has not

¶44

conferred any right on the petitioner to develop the schedule property without obtaining prior approval of the competent Authority.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

bkm

Sri. Praveen S. Reddy v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Praveen S. Reddy v. Bruhat Bengaluru 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

Venkatesh K Vs the Election Commission of India

Sri. Somashekarappa R Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. A.V. Gayathri Shanthegowda Vs Election Commission of India

Smt. Sunita W/O Bharatkumar Aitawade Vs Malikjan S/O Bhaskar Sannakki

Smt. Sunita W/O Bharatkumar Aitawade Vs Basavaraj W/O Mallappa Yaragatti

Smt. Sunita Vs Pradeep S/O. Basavaraj Yaragatti