Sri. Gadam Gopal Krishna Vs the Commissioner

SRI. GADAM GOPAL KRISHNA S/O GADAM VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. MANAGING TRUSTEE, SRI. KANYAKA PARAMESHWARI DEVASTHANAM’S LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA KALYANA MANDIRAM, S.K.P.T. STREET, BRUCEPET, BALLARI 583101.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. M.S. HARAVI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER BALLARI CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BALLARI, DIST. BALLARI 583101.

¶16

THE REVENUE OFFICER BALLARI CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BALLARI, DIST. BALLARI 583101.

¶17

SAROJA HANGARAKI Digitally signed by SAROJAHANGARAKILocation: High Court ofKarnataka, Dharwad BenchDate: 2025.06.27 10:45:06+0530

¶18

THE HEALTH OFFICER BALLARI CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BALLARI, DIST. BALLARI 582101.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1960, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.106611/2017 (LB-TAX) DATED 20-03-2025 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR & ETC.

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

2 -

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8039-DB WA No. 100278 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)

¶28

The appellant being the writ petitioner, has filed this

¶29

intra-court appeal, being aggrieved of the impugned order

¶30

passed by the learned Single Judge in

¶31

W.P.No.106611/2017.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ petition was filed on behalf of Sri.Kanyaka Parameshwari Devasthanam Lakshmivenkateshwara

¶33

Kalyana Mandiram, as Trust which is aggrieved of the impugned notice at Annexure-J dated 23.03.2017, issued by respondent No.2-Revenue Officer, Ballari City Municipal Corporation calling upon the Trust to pay the arrears of property tax commencing from 2014. Learned counsel submits that the Writ Petition has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioners were asked to submit a reply, however, the petitioners have hurriedly filed the Writ

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8039-DB WA No. 100278 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Petition without submitting a suitable reply to the notice and therefore, the Writ Petition is premature. Learned counsel submits that the notice is calling upon the Trust to pay the arrears of tax and therefore, it cannot be considered as a show cause notice calling upon the Trust to give a reply. Moreover, it is submitted that at Annexure-A is an order passed on 20.10.1994 by the Commissioner of the then City Municipal Council of Ballari exempting the Trust from payment of property tax. In that view of the matter, the learned counsel submits that the impugned order is required to be set aside.

¶37

However, we find from the submissions made

¶38

by the learned counsel for appellant that there are two buildings, one the temple itself and the other is the choultry (Kalyana Mantapa) constructed by the Trust. Therefore, it is not very clear as to the exemption granted by the competent authority under Section 110 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, whether it pertains to the temple or it pertains to both the buildings.

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8039-DB WA No. 100278 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Moreover, we also find from sub-section (2) of Section 110

¶42

of the Act that notwithstanding the exemptions granted under the section, it shall be open to the Corporation to collect service charges for providing civic amenities and for general or for special services rendered at such rates as may be prescribed. Therefore, it is for the appellant to seek such clarification at the hands of the respondentCorporation.

¶43

4. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of

¶44

granting liberty to the appellant to seek clarification at the hands of the second respondent-Revenue Officer as to whether the exemption granted earlier in the year 1994 pertains to the temple and the Kalyana Mantapa or only to the temple. The second respondent is also required to clarify as to whether the impugned notice at Annexure-J requires payment of arrears of property tax or if exempted whether the service charges are only required to be paid.

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8039-DB WA No. 100278 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

The appellant/Trust shall place a copy of this

¶48

order with the second respondent along with the requisition as directed by this Court, within a period of two weeks from today. The second respondent shall consider

¶49

the same and inform the Trust about the payment of property tax/service charges and proceed in accordance

¶50

with law.

¶51

Sd/(R.DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶52

Sd/(K V ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶53

MBS,NAA CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 35

Sri. Gadam Gopal Krishna v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Gadam Gopal Krishna v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Irappa S/O Hanamantappa Uppar Vs Sri Suresh S/O Laxaman Hebsur

Ravi S/O Bheemaji Hooli Vs Smt. Divya Prabhu G.R.J

Sri. Gudusab Mahammad Hanif Dandin Vs Sri. Manmathaiyya M Swamy

Honnurappa S/O Kollarappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ramesh S/O. Yallappa Kembhavi Vs Sri Shashidhar Channappagoudar

Shri Yallappa S/O Laxman Jadhav Vs the Commissioner