Allowed

Sri Santosh Kumar v. the Zonal Joint Commissioner (South)

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2022WP/1627/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the rejection of an application to register the petitioners' names in the property tax register despite a pending civil suit. The court held that a pending suit alone is insufficient to reject the application absent a specific restraint order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the endorsement dated 15.06.2018 is quashed, and the Respondent is directed to enter the petitioners' names in the property tax register within 8 weeks.

Sri Santosh Kumar Vs the Zonal Joint Commissioner (South) — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1627 OF 2022 (LB-BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI SANTOSH KUMAR S/O LATE A. VENKATARAMA SETTY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO. 305, 3RD FLOOR BRIGADE PARK VIEW APARTMENT B.P. WADIA ROD, BASAVANAGUDI

¶8

BENGALURU-560 004.

¶9

SRI. M. ASWINI KUMAR S/O LATE M. KUPPA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.4, 5TH 'A' CROSS ITTAMADU, BSK 3RD STAGE 3RD PHASE BENGALURU-560 085.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI SWAMY M.M., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE ZONAL JOINT COMMISSIONER (SOUTH) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU-560 011.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 002.

¶15

G.K. ANIKETH ARYA S/O LATLE SUMANTH ARYA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT NO.569, NEW NO.11

¶16

¶17

SAJJANRAO ROAD, V.V. PURAM BENGALURU-560 002.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI K.N. PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; R3 - SERVED)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.01.2022 PASSED IN nO.zjc/pr/15/20-21 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ENDORSEMENT DATED 15.6.2018 PASSED BY RESPONDNET NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND DIRECT THE R-1 AND R-2 TO CHANGE KHATA OF THE PROPERTY BEARING NO.569 (NEW NO.11) INTO THE NAMES OF THE PETITIONERS PURCHASED UNDER SALE DEEDS DATED 14.12.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B.

¶21

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

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The property bearing Sy.No.567, New Sy.No.11 situated at Renuka Prasada, Sajjan Rao Road, Vishwarapuram, Bengaluru measuring East-West: 34 feet and North-South: 20 feet and 1.5 inches was conveyed to the petitioners by his vendor namely G.K.Mahesh by executing a registered sale deed dated 14.12.2017.

¶24

The petitioners submitted an application with the respondent-BBMP to register their names in the property tax register in pursuance of the registered sale deed executed in their favour. The respondent No.2 issued an endorsement

¶25

¶26

dated 15.06.2018 vide Annexure G stating that the suit O.S.No.1073/2013 is pending consideration in respect of subject property. Against which, the present petition is filed.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting the application submitted by the petitioners for entering their names is contrary to Section 114 (3) of the Act, in the absence restraint order passed by jurisdictional Court in OS No.1073/2013.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent-BBMP submits that since the property in question is the subject matter of O.S.No.1073/2013, the petitioners application cannot be considered and the respondent No.2 has rightly rejected the application submitted by petitioner and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶29

Respondent No.3 though served notice, has remained absent.

¶30

I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

¶32

The subject property is purchased by the petitioner by virtue of registered sale deed dated 14.12.2017. Section 114 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 specifies that

¶33

"(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.

¶34

(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."

¶35

In the instant case, the subject property has

¶36

been conveyed to the Petitioner under the registered sale deed and though suit in OS No.1073/2013, in respect of

¶37

¶38

subject property is pending consideration, there is no order of restraint passed by the jurisdictional civil Court restraining the petitioners vendor from alienating schedule property or an order restraining the petitioners from enjoying the property. The name of the owner/occupier of the property is entered in the property tax register only for the purpose of collecting property tax and it does not confer any right/title over the property independently but only recognizes the right acquired under the registered deed.

¶39

Hence, the impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.2, rejecting application submitted by petitioner is contrary to Section 114 of the Act and the same is not sustainable. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i) The writ petition is allowed .

¶42

ii) Impugned endorsement dated 15.6.2018 issued by the respondent No.2 at annexure G is hereby quashed.

¶43

iii) Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to enter the names of the petitioners in the property tax register in respect of subject property in pursuance of the registered

¶44

¶45

sale deed dated 14.12.2017 subject to petitioners satisfying other requirement of law.

¶46

iv) The said exercise shall be completed within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶47

v) It is needless to state that the registration of the

¶48

names of the petitioners is subject to the outcome of OS.No.1073/2013.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Sri Santosh Kumar v. the Zonal Joint Commissioner (South)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Santosh Kumar v. the Zonal Joint Commissioner (South)

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

Suraj Kumar Jain Vs Department of Town and Country Planning

Mr Jaya Moolya Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Laxmi Vs the Mangaluru City Corporation

Savitha S Vs the Commissioner

Sri Sharath Shetty Vs the Municipal Commissioner

Ravikiran M Vs State of Karnataka