Disposed

Mr. Kekoo S Sethna v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC27 Nov 2024WP/20483/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged BBMP tax demand orders for 2017-18 to 2021-22 and sought to avail the One-Time Settlement Scheme. After the respondents clarified a discrepancy between two OTS notices due to an error in declared built-up area, the court disposed of the petition permitting payment of Rs.62,97,329/- under the OTS.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to pay Rs.62,97,329/- under the OTS; respondents directed to receive the amount notwithstanding delay.

Mr. Kekoo S Sethna Vs Bruhat Bengaluru… — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:48664 WP No. 20483 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 20483 OF 2023 (LB-TAX)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

MR. KEKOO S SETHNA S/O LATE MR. SOLI R. SETHNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, AT NO. 13, KENSINGTON ROAD, ULSOOR BANGALORE - 560 042

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. L. M. CHIDANANDAYYA., ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶11

ASST. REVENUE OFFICER KADUGONDANAHALLI SUB DIVISION BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE - 560001.

¶12

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KARTHIKEYAN B S.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶13

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:48664 WP No. 20483 of 2023

¶16

RECORDS WHICH RESULTED IN PASSING THE ORDERS ANNEXURES-A1 TO A5 BEARING ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE REF NO. ARO(KGH)/W-60/PR-239/2020-21 DATED 12/07/2023 RESPECTIVELY FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 21/07/2023 BEARING NO. ARO(KGH)/W-60/PR240/2020-21 RESPECTIVELY FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 21/07/2023 BEARING NO. ARO(KGH)/W-60/PR-241/2020-21 RESPECTIVELY FOR THE YEAR 2019-20 ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 21/07/2023 BEARING NO. ARO(KGH)/W-60/PR-242/2020-21 FOR THE YEAR 202021 ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 21/07/2023 BEARING NO. ARO(KGH)/W-60/PR-243/2020-21 FOR THE YEAR 2021-22 ISSUED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A1 TO A5; QUASH THE ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE REF NO. ARO(KGH)/W-60/PR-239/2020-21 DATED 12/07/2023 RESPECTIVELY FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 ANNEXURE-A1 ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 21/07/2023 BEARING NO. ARO(KGH)/W-60/PR240/2020-21 RESPECTIVELY FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 ANNEXURE-A2 ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 21/07/2023 BEARING NO. ARO(KGH)/W-60/PR241/2020-21 RESPECTIVELY FOR THE YEAR 2019-20 ANNEXURE-A3 ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 21/07/2023 BEARING NO. ARO(KGH)/W-60/PR242/2020-21 FOR THE YEAR 2020-21 ANNEXURE-A4 ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 21/07/2023 BEARING NO. ARO(KGH)/W-60/PR-243/2020-21 FOR

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:48664 WP No. 20483 of 2023

¶19

THE YEAR 2021-22 ISSUED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEXUREA5.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has filed this petition calling in question the Demand and Orders under Section 108A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. The respondents have notified One-Time Settlement Scheme [OTS] and even those who are served with demands, as in the present case, could avail the benefit under such Scheme. The petitioner desires to avail the benefit.

¶23

The petitioner firstly is issued with the Notice dated 30.10.2024 [ Annexure-L ] indicating that the petitioner will have to pay Rs.62,50,194/- under the OTS in force and the petitioner is next issued with Notice dated 06.11.2024 [ Annexure-N ]. This time the

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:48664 WP No. 20483 of 2023

¶26

petitioner is informed that he will have to pay Rs.62,97,329/-. Sri L. Chidanandaiah, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court may dispose of this petition permitting the petitioner to avail the benefit of the OTS if the BBMP and its officials can clarify the reason for difference in the amounts between Annexure-L and Annexure-N.

¶27

Sri Karthikeyan B.S., the learned counsel for the first and the second respondents, is heard in the light of this submission. The learned counsel submits that the subsequent notice dated 06.11.2024 is issued with the confirmation that there is some error in the declaration by the petitioner as regards the built-up area and that the petitioner will have to pay a sum of Rs.62,97,329/- subject to minor variations as may be indicated on the Portal. Sri L. Chidanandaiah submits that with this clarification the petition may indeed be disposed of observing that

¶28

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:48664 WP No. 20483 of 2023

¶29

the petitioner can avail the OTS paying

¶30

Rs.62,97,329/-.

¶31

In the light of the afore, the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to offer this amount of Rs. 62,97,329/- under OTS and directing the respondents to receive this amount under the OTS as the delay in offering this amount is also because of the undisputed circumstances leading to the present petition.

¶32

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶33

NV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62

Mr. Kekoo S Sethna v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Kekoo S Sethna 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

M/S. Samriddhi Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner, Bbmp

M.M.Anandaram Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Sri Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri John David Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Varadaraju Vs Executive Officer

Manjunath Babu K Vs State of Karnataka