Disposed

Sri. Nikhil Ubhayakar v. Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC25 Nov 2024WP/4411/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged BBMP assessment orders under Section 144(15)(e) BBMP Act and attachment of his Malleshwaram property for under-declaration of built-up area. A fresh inspection measured construction at 3,993 sq. ft.; with consent, the court disposed of the petition permitting the petitioner to avail the One Time Settlement scheme on that measurement.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri. Nikhil Ubhayakar Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:48156 WP No. 4411 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4411 OF 2024 (LB-TAX)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SRI. NIKHIL UBHAYAKAR S/O N P UBHAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, EARLIER RESIDING AT COTTAGE NO 3, PANDURANGASRAM COLONY, 8TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU 560055 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT R/AT B-105 PANDURANGASHRAM COLONY, 8TH MAIN ROAD MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU 560055 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANANDARAMA K., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE KANDYABHAVAN, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶12

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE MALLESWARAM SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU 560003

¶13

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:48156 WP No. 4411 of 2024

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WEST BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE OFFICE OF THE REVENUE OFFICER, BBMP BUILDING, 5TH MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS, MAHAKAVIKUVEMPU ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALORE 560003

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY MS. SUMANA BALIGA M.,ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO ORDER NO. ARO(MLW)/W65/PR-407/2020-21,ORDER NO. ARO(MLW)/W-65/PR408/2020-21,ORDER NO. ARO(MLW)/W-65/PR409/2020-21, ORDER NO. ARO(MLW)/W-65/PR410/2020-21, ORDER NO. ARO(MLW)/W-65/PR411/2020-21, ORDER NO. ARO(MLW)/W-65/PR412/2020-21 ALL DATED 08/12/2023 AND DEMAND NOTICE NO. ARO(MLW)/W-65/PR-407/2020-21, DEMAND NOTICE NO. ARO(MLW)/W-65/PR-408/202021,DEMAND NOTICE NO. ARO(MLW)/W-65/PR409/2020-21, DEMAND NOTICE NO. ARO(MLW)/W65/PR-410/2020-21, DEMAND NOTICE NO. ARO(MLW)/W-65/PR-411/2020-21,DEMAND NOTICE NO. ARO(MLW)/W-65/PR-412/2020-21 ALL DATED 08/12/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BBMP, R2 HEREIN; QUASH THE ORDERS IN ORDER NO. ARO(MLW)/W-65/PR-407/2020 DATED 08/12/2023 (ANNEXURE-D), ORDER NO. ARO(MLW)/W-65/PR-408/2020, DATED 08/12/2023 (ANNEXURE-E), ORDER NO. ARO(MLW)/W-65/PR409/2020, DATED 08/12/2023 (ANNEXURE-F), ORDER NO. ARO(MLW)/W-65/PR-410/2020, DATED 08/12/2023 (ANNEXURE-G), ORDER NO. ARO(MLW)/W65/PR-411/2020, DATED 08/12/2023 (ANNEXURE-H), ORDER NO. ARO(MLW)/W-65/PR-412/2020, DATED 08/12/2023 (ANNEXURE-J) ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BBMP, R2 HEREIN IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICES IN DEMAND NOTICE NO. ARO(MLW)/W-65/PR-407/2020 DATED

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:48156 WP No. 4411 of 2024

¶21

08/12/2023 (ANNEXURE-D1), DEMAND NOTICE NO. ARO(MLW)/W-65/PR-408/2020, DATED 08/12/2023 (ANNEXURE-E1), DEMAND NOTICE NO. ARO(MLW)/W65/PR-409/2020, DATED 08/12/2023 (ANNEXURE-F1), DEMAND NOTICE NO. ARO(MLW)/W-65/PR-410/2020, DATED 08/12/2023 (ANNEXURE-G1), DEMAND NOTICENO. ARO(MLW)/W-65/PR-411/2020, DATED 08/12/2023 (ANNEXURE-H1), DEMAND NOTICE NO. ARO(MLW)/W-65/PR-412/2020, DATED 08/12/2023 (ANNEXURE-J1) ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BBMP, R2 HEREIN IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.d) QUASH THE ORDER OF ATTACHMENT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY NO. NIL DATED 20/01/2024 (ANNEXURE-K) ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (WEST), BBMP, R3 HEREIN IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner, who is the owner of property bearing Municipal No.47/1A, 13^th Cross, Malleshwaram, Corporation Ward No.7, Bangalore [ the Subject Property ] has called in question orders under Section 144(15)(e) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [BBMP Act] essentially contending that the proceedings are concluded without due notice of inspection. The petitioner has

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:48156 WP No. 4411 of 2024

¶27

also called in question the attachment of the Subject Property vide order dated 20.01.2024 after the impugned orders under Section 144 of the BBMP Act.

¶28

In the light of the petitioner's grievance that the proceedings are without due notice of inspection, this Court had permitted the jurisdictional Assistant Revenue Officer to inspect the petitioner's property and file a report on the measurement. If the earlier proceeding was because the petitioner has declared only 2,400 Sq. Ft. as built-up area as against 5,800 Sq. Ft, the report now placed on record states that the construction [including the car parking] is only 3,993 Sq. Ft.

¶29

The petitioner does not dispute this

¶30

measurement and in fact, Mr. Anandarama K., the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that with the measurement as now ascertained, the petition could be disposed of permitting the petitioner to avail the benefit of One Time Settlement [OTS] and settle

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:48156 WP No. 4411 of 2024

¶33

all the disputes in terms of such Scheme. Ms. Sumana Baliga, a learned standing counsel for the BBMP and its Officers, is heard in the light of this submission and she is categorical that with the report being available with the Assistant Revenue Officer, it would be permissible for the petitioner to avail the benefit of OTS based on the measurement as now ascertained. As such, the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The present petition stands disposed of permitting the petitioner to avail OTS on the basis of the assessment that the construction, including the car parking measures, 3,993 Sq. Ft.

¶36

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶37

Sri. Nikhil Ubhayakar v. Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri. Nikhil Ubhayakar v. Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Pallavi T S Vs State of Karnataka

Bishop Angels School Vs Chief Commissioner

G T Bopaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B v Mohana Vs the Commissioner

Gopalan Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. D.R.Hemalatha Vs Bangalore Bruhath Mahanagara Palike