Partly allowed

Gurujyothi Education Society v. City Municipal Council, Hassan

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2024WP/24755/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An educational society challenged property tax challans and a condition requiring surrender of part of its land for layout plan approval. Relying on Arun Kumar B.C. and K.T. Plantation, the court held the relinquishment condition violated Article 300-A and partly allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned demand notice partly quashed except cess; liberty reserved to respondent to issue revised demand notice in respect of cess.

Gurujyothi Education Society Vs City Municipal… — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:39456 WP No. 24755 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 24755 OF 2023 (LB-TAX)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

GURUJYOTHI EDUCATION SOCIETY THROUGH ITS SECRETARY NO.54, 1^ST FLOOR RAVINDRA NAGAR HASSAN-573201 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI MANJUNATH BABU

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. A M SHODHAN BABU, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HASSAN THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER SANTEPETE CIRCLE HASSAN-573201 …RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR A., ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE PROPERTY TAX CHALLANS BEARING NUMBERS 46050HSNOC23062023 AND 46052HSNOC23062023 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HASSAN ANNEXURE-A (COLLY), TO THE EXTENT THE DEMAND PERTAINS TO PROPERTY TAX, DELAY PENALTY QUA UNPAID PROPERTY TAX, AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ACCEPT PAYMENT OF CESS/SURCHARGE ETC;

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39456 WP No. 24755 of 2023

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

This writ petition is filed quashing and setting aside two property tax challans dated 23.06.2023 passed by the respondent vide Annexure-A and impugned challans issued by the respondent vide Annexure-B.

¶22

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:

¶23

The petitioner was duly registered as an educational institution under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 for running a school from 1^st standard to 7^th standard. The petitioner received recognition for conducting classes for 8^th standard to 10the standard as well. The petitioner had been duly paying cess applicable to its land usage after availing the benefit of being exempted from payment of property tax as per Section 94(1-A)(i) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act'). The

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39456 WP No. 24755 of 2023

¶25

respondent issued two property tax challans and impugned challans. The petitioner responded to the impugned challanas by way of representation dated 04.08.2023. The petitioner informed the respondent to the exemption from payment of property tax as per the Act. The representation of the petitioner was delivered to the respondent, but no action has been taken by the respondent. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition imposed by the respondent in regard to relinquishing the portion of the property possessed by the petitioner is contrary to article 300 of the Constitution of India. He submits that right to property is just not a statutory right, but same has also been granted as a constitutional right and human right. He submits that in the identical matter, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:39456 WP No. 24755 of 2023

¶30

has set aside single condition imposed by the authority.

¶31

The petitioner is entitled for the same benefit.

¶32

Further, in order to buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance of the order passed by the Co-ordinate

¶33

bench of this Court in the case of ARUN KUMAR B.C. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS REPORTED IN ILR 2022

¶34

KAR 1461. He submits that the respondent may be directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner without insisting for the execution of deed of relinquishment. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶35

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

¶36

supports the impugned order and prays to dismissal of the writ petition.

¶37

Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶38

It is not in dispute that, the petitioner has submitted an application for approval of single site layout

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39456 WP No. 24755 of 2023

¶40

plan. The respondent approved the single site plan subject to for relinquishment of portion of land at free of cost. The issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in the case of ARUN KUMAR B.C. (referred supra), wherein this Court held that requiring the owners to surrender of the property right earmarked for widening of road free of cost for sanctioning of the building plan is violative of Article 300-A of Constitution of India and further the Co-ordinate bench of this Court has referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.T. PLANTATION PRIVATE

¶41

LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPORTED IN AIR 2011

¶42

SC 3430 . The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the owner of immovable property cannot be deprived of his property by mere executive order without any specific legal authority or supported by competent legislation. In the absence of specific legal authority or support by the competent legislation, the respondents cannot insist the petitioner to surrender the portion of the land free of cost by executing the deed of relinquishment. The condition mentioned in

¶43