Udayashankar H M Vs the Commissioner

BOTH THE PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT NO.24, NESTATES VELVET APARTMENT DOOR NO.003, KALPANA CHAWLA ROAD SANJAYA NAGARA EXTESION, BHOOPASANDRA, OPP. HOYSALA APARTMENT, (VIJAY ENCLAVE) BEHIND KARNATAKA SEEDS CORPOATION/ AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, BENGALURU - 560 094.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. RAVI H.K, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) BBMP EAST ZONE UNITY BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 025.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:6647 WP No. 16158 of 2019

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER HEBBAL SUB DIVISION , BBMP MUNIREDDY PALYA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 006.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. SATYANAND B.S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶24

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DTD 16.02.2018 VIDE ANNX-B ISSUED BY THE R-3 IN SO FAR AS THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS IS CONCERNED AND ETC.,

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN

¶26

'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following

¶30

reliefs:

¶31

(a) Quash the notice bearing no.: WA(hebbal)19(100)KTR/128/2017-18 dated 16.02.2018 vide Annexure-B issued by the Respondent no.3 in so far as the property of the petitioners is concerned by issuing the Writ of Certiorari.

¶32

(b) Direct the respondents to restore the Khata of the petitioners property to Form A and redo the property tax assessment in so far as the property of the petitioners is concerned in accordance with law by issuing a Writ of Mandamus.

¶33

(c) Direct the respondents to consider the representation/objection dated 19.06.2018 made by the petitioner no.1 Vide Annexure-C by issuing a Writ of Mandamus.

¶34

3 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:6647 WP No. 16158 of 2019

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

(d) Grant such other and further as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justices and Equity.

¶38

The petitioners claim to be the joint owners of an apartment bearing Municipal No.24, Nestates Velvet Apartment, Door No.003, Kalpana Chawla Road, Sanjaya Nagara Extension, Boopasandra, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 27.08.2015 from G.Shreenivasa @ G. Srinivasa, Mrs. S.Lakshmi and M/s. Nestates Projects Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner having applied for issuance of 'A' Khata, the Khata was refused. The endorsement had been issued that a 'B' Khata would be issued. It is challenging the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶39

The submission of Sri. H.K.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Khata for the said property, earlier A-Khata had been issued and as such, now a B-Khata cannot be issued and in that regard he relies upon the decision of the Co-ordinate Branch of this Court in W.P.No.10976/2015 between Jai M. Patil vs. The Commissioner more particularly paragraph No.11, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:6647 WP No. 16158 of 2019

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

"As already indicated above, the distinction between Form A and Form B under Rule 11 depends upon the factum of assessment of property tax already made and yet un-assessed properties. There is no denial of fact in the present case that the property of petitioner, name Flat NO.A6 was already assessed to Property Tax and not only 'A' Khata Certificate was issued to him vide Annexure-C on 10.03.2020, but even, the Property Tax for the period from 2008-09 to 2013-14 was collected from him on that basis, as would appear from the details given in the writ petition. Therefore, the inclusion of the petitioner's name and the property in Form B under Rule 11 of the Property Tax Rules, 2009 is not only controverted by the evidence placed on record, but has not been disputed and cannot be disputed by the respondent BBMP. The inclusion of the said property under Form B on the basis of alleged deviations and violation of the building bye-laws has nothing to do with Rule 11 of the Property Tax Rules, 2009. Neither the entry of the petitioner’s property in Form A under Property Tax Rules, 2009 nor Section 108-A(3) of the Act precludes the respondent BBMP from taking action against the Builder or Developer for the violation of building bye-laws and the construction raised beyond the sanctioned plan. The assessment and collection of Property Tax is irrespective of such deviations or violations as clearly stipulated in Section 108-A(3) of the Act, quoted above."

¶44

His submission is that once a 'A' Khata has been issued to a property, subsequently a 'B' Khata cannot be issued for the very same property. It is in that background that he was called upon to produce the 'A' Khata, which had been issued to the petitioners.

¶45

Today, he has filed a memo placing on record the Khata certificate which had been issued in favour of his vendors, namely, Smt. S. Lakshmi and Shreenivasa G, and

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:6647 WP No. 16158 of 2019

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

submits that a 'A' Khata having been issued to the vendors, and the petitioners also have to be issued 'A' Khata.

¶50

On further enquiry as to whether there was a Khata certificate which had been issued to the petitioners, he submits that there was no 'A'-Khata or any Khata certificate issued to the petitioners in respect of the aforesaid apartment No.003.

¶51

Sri B.S.Satyanand, leaned counsel appearing for the BBMP submits that the reason why a 'B' Khata has been proposed to be issued to the petitioners is for the purpose of assessment and collection of taxes since the construction which has been put up is not in accordance with the applicable building bye-laws, there being a deviation, no occupation certificate has been issued in respect to the said building. The building has been unauthorisedly occupied by the petitioners and certain others and it is in that background it is stated that a 'B' Khata could be issued.

¶52

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:6647 WP No. 16158 of 2019

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

His submission is that at no point of time, there was Khata issued in respect of the apartment for the first time when an application was made by the petitioners. The said endorsement stating that a 'B' Khata could be issued has been furnished.

¶55

Heard. Sri. H.K.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri. B.S.Satyanand, learned counsel for the respondents and perused papers.

¶56

The above petition has been filed on a fraudulent basis contending that the 'A' Khata which had been issued for the empty vacant site, would be applicable to the apartment. The contention being that once the 'A' Khata has been issued, 'B' Khata cannot be issued, which would amount to unilaterally changing the Khatas. What is being missed out is that the 'A' Khata has been issued in respect to the vacant property. The owners of the vacant property had entered into a joint development agreement and put up construction of the apartments, which have been sold, one of which has been purchased by the petitioners.

¶57

7 -

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:6647 WP No. 16158 of 2019

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Thus, the Khata which the petitioners have sought for is not as regards the vacant property but as regards the apartment purchased by the petitioners, which do not stand on the same footing. The endorsement which has been issued by the respondents is that a 'B' Khata would be issued is on account of the violations in respect of the building plan and the deviation thereof inasmuch as there is a third floor which has been put up unauthorisedly in complete violation of the plan sanction.

¶61

Whenever any building is constructed before it is occupied, it is required that an occupancy certificate be obtained, and while considering an application for issuance of an occupancy certificate, the concerned authorities have to examine whether the construction has been put up in accordance with the plan sanction and all other safety measures have been incorporated before the property is occupied.

¶62

In the present case, there is admittedly no occupancy certificate which has been issued in favour of the petitioners. As such, their occupation of the property

¶63

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:6647 WP No. 16158 of 2019

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

itself is unauthorised and illegal. Furthermore, there is a third floor which has been put up which is also unauthorised and illegal. In that view of the matter it is clear that the Khata which had been issued for the empty property, cannot be taken as a reference point for an apartment which has been purchased by the petitioners. The respondents have come forward to issue a 'B' Khata probably only for the purpose of collection of taxes and no other purposes, that cannot be a ground to enable the petitioners to seek for issuance of 'A' Khata by contending that the endorsement issued in respect of the 'B' Khata amounts to unilaterally changing the Khata from 'A' to 'B'.

¶66

As afore observed, the same is completely misconceived and dishonest inasmuch as there was never a Khata which had been issued to the petitioner's property. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

i) Writ petition is dismissed

¶69

9 -

¶70

NC: 2026:KHC:6647 WP No. 16158 of 2019

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

ii) A cost of Rs.10,000/- is imposed, which shall be paid by the petitioners to the Advocate Clerk's Benevolent Fund.

¶73

iii) The respondents-BBMP is directed to take necessary action as regards the unauthorised construction which has been put up on the third floor within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶74

iv) Though the above petition is disposed, re-list on 24.03.2026 for the BBMP to place his report on record as regards the action taken.

¶75

SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

¶76

JUDGE

¶77

GJM

¶78

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14

Udayashankar H M v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udayashankar H M 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Odwen Technologies Private Limited Vs U G Enterprises

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Chayadevi

The Manager Vs Udaya Prakash Bhat

H.R.T. Saldanha Vs Vernon X. Saldanha

The Kannada Sahitya Parishattu Vs the Secretary

Prof. Jayaprakash Gowda. B Vs the State of Karnataka