Allowed

Sri Srikanth Shastri v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2024WP/21250/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash notices regarding cancellation of tax settlements for his land. The High Court relied on a prior identical judgment, quashed the notices, and reserved liberty for the petitioner to respond while directing the authority to consider such response.

What did the court decide?

Notices quashed; liberty reserved for petitioner to file response within two weeks; respondent directed to consider response within four months.

Sri Srikanth Shastri Vs State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:36579 WP No. 21250 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 21250 OF 2023 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SRIKANTH SHASTRI S/O LATE CHIDAMBARA SHASTRY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT SHIVARAJAPURA, SURALIBALEBYLU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, THIRTAHALLI TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 432.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHIVARAMA BHAT O., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

GRAMA PANCHAYATH MULABAGILU REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MULABAGILU RANDAKATTE THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 432.

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH, THIRTHAHALLI - 577 432.

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36579 WP No. 21250 of 2023

¶17

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH SHIMOGA DISTRICT SHIMOGA - 577 432.

¶18

SRI BHASKAR SHETTY S/O SHANAKARA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT SHIVARAJAPURA MULABAGILU POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 432.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1 SRI. B.J. SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4 SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R6 R5 SERVED)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICES DATED 04/09/2023 PASSED BY THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER / R2 AND ALSO THE ORDER ENDORSEMENT DATED 13/09/2023 PASSED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO F AND G WHICH PASSED BY R3 RESPECTIVELY BY RESTORING THE KHATA AND E-KHATA IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER BY RECEIVING THE PREVAILING TAX IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES BEARING DEMAND REGISTER NO. 41/61, 39/53, 51/63, 53/64, 57/95/01, 56/94/01 SITUATED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF MULABAGILU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THIRTAHALLI, SHIVAMOGA.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:36579 WP No. 21250 of 2023

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking to quash

¶29

the notices vide Annexures-A to F and G issued by respondent No.3 dated 13.09.2023.

¶30

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as under:

¶31

The petitioner is the owner and in possession of the site bearing Demand register Nos.41/61, 39/53, 51/63, 53/64, 57/95/01, 56/94/01, situated within the jurisdiction of Mulabagilu Grama Panchayath, Thirtahalli, Shivamoga.

¶32

These are the private sites of the petitioner. The Panchayath -respondent No.3 without issuing any notice had cancelled the khata made in favour of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the respondents.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:36579 WP No. 21250 of 2023

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶37

the respondents have issued notices as per Annexures A to F and G without initiating any proceedings. Hence, notices issued by the respondents are arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on this ground, prays to allow the writ petition.

¶38

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that in an identical matter of this Court in W.P.No.3979/2024 disposed of on 10.04.2024, where the notice dated 04.09.2023 was construed the show cause notice and liberty to the petitioner was reserved to file a response to the said notice and respondent No.2 was directed to consider such response, strictly in accordance with law and by a reasoned order. Hence, he submits that this writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid writ petition.

¶39

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36579 WP No. 21250 of 2023

¶41

Admittedly, respondent No.2 issued notice as per Annexures A to F and G. The petitioner without submitting any response to the said notices has filed this writ petition. In an identical matter, this Court has quashed the impugned notices. This Court in the case of ASHOKA V NAYAK VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in

¶42

W.P.NO.3979/2024 , held that impugned notice and entries in the Tax Demand Register Extracts shall not be disturbed based on this demand or resolution and liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file response to the impugned notice therein within two weeks from the date of certified copy of the order and calling upon the respondent No.2 to consider the such response strictly in accordance with law and by a reasoned order. The petitioner stand on the same foot in and the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition. I concur with the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition.

¶43

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:36579 WP No. 21250 of 2023

¶45

ORDER

¶46

The writ petition is allowed declaring that the impugned notices dated 13.09.2023 vide Annexures A to F and G shall be strictly construed as notices and that the entries in the Tax Demand Register extracts shall not be disturbed based on this demand or resolution.

¶47

The petitioner is reserved with the liberty to file response to the impugned notices within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the respondent No.2 to consider such response and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of response from the petitioner.

¶48

All the contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶49

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶50

SKS

Sri Srikanth Shastri v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Srikanth Shastri 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The New World Hospitality Private Limited Vs Smt Bharathi Nagraj Urs

Sri Kalegowda Vs Sri Sannamogegowda

Smt Kamalamma Vs Sri Mohan

Smt.J. Roopa Vs the Chief Commissioner

Kum Sushmitha S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Gurumurthy. B Vs the State of Karnataka