Disposed

Sri. Shashidhar M .v. v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Aug 2024WP/4725/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed to quash demand notices for property tax arrears. After a judicial inspection and a PWD report confirmed the plinth area, the court directed the BBMP to issue a revised notice and allow the petitioner to avail the OTS scheme.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to issue revised demand notice and petitioner permitted to avail OTS scheme.

Sri. Shashidhar M .v. Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:34895 WP No. 4725 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 4725 OF 2024 (LB-TAX)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SRI. SHASHIDHAR M .V. S/O MR. A VISWESWARAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NO. 152, 3^RD CROSS KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR, DATTATREYA EXTENSION NEAR CORPORATION SCHOOL GAVIPURAM EXTENSION BENGALURU 560 019

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. KEERTHI PRASAD D C., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI BANGALORE 560 001 REPRSENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (B.B.M.P), CORPORATION CIRCLE BENGALURU 560 038

¶15

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER JAYANAGAR SUB DIVISION, B.B.M.P BENGALURU 560 011

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:34895 WP No. 4725 of 2024

¶18

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER B.B.M.P, JAYANGAR BENGALURU 560 011

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. KESHAV M DATAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4 SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH ANNEXURE-B1 ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DTD 02.02.2024, BEARING NO. ARO(JYN)W-168/PR-209/2023-24, ANNEXUREB2 ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DTD 02.02.2024, BEARING NO. ARO(JYN)W-168/PR-210/2023-24, ANNEXURE-B3 ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DTD 02.02.2024 BEARING NO. ARO(JYN)W-168/PR-211/2023-24, ANNEXURE-B4 ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DTD 02.02.2024, BEARING NO. ARO(JYN)W168/PR-212/2023-24, ANNEXURE-B5 ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DTD 02.02.2024, BEARING NO. ARO(JYN)W-168/PR213/2023-24, ANNEXURE-B6 ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DTD 02.02.2024, BEARING NO. ARO(JYN)W-168/PR-214/202324 AND ANNEXURE-B7 ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE DTD 02.02.2024, BEARING NO. ARO(JYN)W-168/PR-215/2023-24 ISSUED BY THE R-3 AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for quashing the demand notices vide Annexures 'B1 to B7' and also Annexure 'D', issued by the respondent No.3.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:34895 WP No. 4725 of 2024

¶27

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

¶28

It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property bearing No.3, 33^rd Cross, 4^th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, having PID No.60118-3 consisting of ground and two upper floors. The petitioner has self assessed the said property to tax and paying tax to the BBMP regularly. The petitioner had paid the tax up to 2023-24. The respondent No.3 without considering the tax paid by the petitioner, issued a showcause notice for the years 2016-17 to 2022-23 and it is stated that there are no lawful reasons given for arriving into the conclusion for alleged sum of Rs.34,45,801/- as due from the year 2016-17 to 2022-23 and also imposed penalty and interest on the said amount and respondent No.3 demanded a sum of Rs.34,45,801/-. The petitioner aggrieved by the same, has filed this writ petition.

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:34895 WP No. 4725 of 2024

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide order dated 07.03.2024, ordered that the jurisdictional Revenue Inspector shall inspect the petitioner's property on 19.03.2024, and submit a report on 02.04.2024. He submits that the jurisdictional Revenue Inspector has submitted a report. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the report submitted by the jurisdictional Revenue Inspector, filed objections to the report. This Court, vide order dated 24.06.2024, directed the Assistant Executive Engineer of PWD to carry out measurement of the building and submit a report in

¶33

respect of the built up area on the property in question along with the plinth area. Pursuant to the order dated 24.06.2024, the Assistant Executive Engineer of PWD submitted a report on 18.07.2024, which discloses that

¶34

the total plinth area of the building is 6022.24 sq. ft. Hence, he submits that the petitioner is ready to pay the difference of tax on the plinth area of the building. He submits that the respondents be directed to issue revised

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:34895 WP No. 4725 of 2024

¶36

demand notice as per the report of the Assistant Executive Engineer of PWD.

¶37

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submits that the respondents-BBMP will issue a revised demand notice as per the report submitted by the Assistant Executive Engineer of PWD and provide an opportunity to the petitioner to avail the OTS scheme.

¶38

Perused the records and considered the

¶39

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶40

It is not in dispute that the respondents-BBMP had issued demand notices as per Annexures 'B1 to B7'. The petitioner aggrieved by the same, filed this writ petition. This Court vide order dated 07.03.2024, observed that there is difference in the declaration filed by the petitioner and the details as verified by the Revenue Inspector as regards the self-occupied extent and the area declared as tenanted, as also the total built up area.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:34895 WP No. 4725 of 2024

¶43

This Court has enabled spot inspection by the jurisdictional Revenue Inspector calling for a report, with liberty to the concerned to participate in the inspection. Accordingly, directed the Revenue Inspector to carry out the inspection. Pursuant to the same, the Revenue Inspector has submitted a report after inspecting the site. The petitioner filed objections to the spot inspection report. The petitioner also furnished a report of the Chartered Engineer and submitted that according to the said report, the total extent of the built up area is 6060 sq. ft., while in the inspection report, it is mentioned as 6,200 sq. ft., with 300 sq. ft. parking. This Court vide order dated 24.06.2024, in order to ascertain the correct information, directed the concerned Assistant Executive Engineer of PWD to carry out measurement of the building and submit a report to this Court. Pursuant to the order dated 24.06.2024, passed by this Court, the Assistant Executive Engineer of PWD submitted a report on 18.07.2024. From the perusal of the said report, it discloses that the plinth area of the building of the

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:34895 WP No. 4725 of 2024

¶46

petitioner is 6022.24 sq. ft. The petitioner has not filed any objections to the said report submitted by the Assistant Executive Engineer of PWD. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a direction be issued to the respondents - BBMP to issue a revised demand notice considering the plinth area of the building of the petitioner

¶47

as 6022.24 sq. ft., for which the learned counsel for the respondent - BBMP submits that the BBMP will issue revised demand notice considering the report submitted by the Assistant Executive Engineer of PWD.

¶48

In view of the same, nothing survives for

¶49

consideration in this writ petition. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

The writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents - BBMP to issue revised demand notice in terms of the report submitted by the Assistant Executive Engineer of PWD, within a period of one week from today and thereafter the petitioner is permitted to avail

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:34895 WP No. 4725 of 2024

¶54

the OTS scheme within a period of one week thereafter.

¶55

In view of disposal of the writ petition, pending IAs., if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.

¶56

SD/(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE

¶57

Sri. Shashidhar M .v. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Shashidhar M .v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A B Mallikarjun Vs the Commissioner

Sri Kota Srinivasa Poojary Vs the State of Karnataka

Natesh C Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. H S Mahadev Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr T K Mohammed Vs Smt Y K Dhanalakshmi

Sri v Prasad Vs the State of Karnataka