Latha M Vs Greater Bengaluru Authority (Gba) — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Latha M Vs Greater Bengaluru Authority (Gba) — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed in part: the impugned Reassessment Orders (Annexures B1 to B9) for assessment years 2016-17 to 2024-25 are quashed and the proceedings restored to the sixth respondent; the petitioner may file a certified copy of the order within fifteen days with the sixth respondent, who shall issue notice extending an opportunity to the petitioner and then conclude the assessment proceedings in light of the Court's observations.

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court must interfere with the Reassessment Orders under Section 150(3)(e) of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 relating to assessment years 2016-17 to 2024-25. +1 more

Court's answer

This Court opines that there is complete non-consideration of the petitioner's circumstances and her detailed response in the reassessment proceedings.

Ratio / Principle

The sixth respondent must re-examine all aspects with due opportunity to the petitioner for an effective conclusion.

Key takeaways

If the petitioner is able to demonstrate that the construction was completed only in the year 2021, the assessment can only be from such period, subject to the limitation on reassessment.obiter¶52
This Court intervenes to quash the impugned orders of reassessment, restoring the proceedings to the sixth respondent for reconsideration.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LB-TAX) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by a Bengaluru property owner challenging nine consequential Reassessment Orders and Demand Notices dated 05.05.2026 (Nos. ARO(KGR)/W-130/PR-1477/2026-27 to ARO(KGR)/W-130/PR-1485/2026-27; Annexures B1 to B9) issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer, Kengeri Subdivision, Bengaluru West City Corporation, under Section 150(3)(e) of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 for assessment years 2016-17 to 2024-25, following Show Cause Notices dated 04.02.2026 (Annexures A1 to A9). Counsel contended the petitioner purchased the property on 06.05.1999, obtained a Sanction Plan approved on 31.05.2019, completed construction strictly per plan in 2021, yet was assessed from 2016-17 on an asserted excess built-up area (10,143 sq ft constructed against c.9,000 sq ft sanctioned), and that her detailed response to the Show Cause Notice went wholly unconsidered. Finding complete non-consideration, the Court allowed the petition in part, quashed Annexures B1 to B9, and restored the proceedings to the sixth respondent for re-examination of all aspects with due opportunity to the petitioner, observing that if construction is demonstrated to have been completed only in 2021, assessment can only be from such period subject to the limitation on reassessment.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35040 WP No. 20851 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 20851 OF 2026 (LB-TAX)

BETWEEN:

LATHA M W/O BABU N J AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.193, 4^TH CROSS, 7^TH MAIN, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 040.

…PETITIONER

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI.PRATHIK NAIDU B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY (GBA) (EARLIER KNOWN AS BBMP) HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU 560002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

COMMISSIONER, GBA BENGALURU WEST CITY CORPORATION, BWCC COMMISSIONER OFFICE, 16^TH CROSS ROAD, VYALIKAVAL,

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35040 WP No. 20851 of 2026

HC-KAR

KODANDARAMPURA, MALLESHWARAM,

BENGALURU 560 003.

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), GBA BENGALURU WEST CITY CORPORATION, BWCC COMMISSIONER OFFICE, 16^TH CROSS ROAD, VYALIKAVAL, KODANDARAMPURA, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003.

JOINT COMMISSIONER (ZONE - 1), GBA BENGALURU WEST CITY CORPORATION, 18^TH CROSS ROAD, IDEAL HOMES TOWNSHIP, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560098.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ZONE - 1), GBA BENGALURU WEST CITY CORPORATION, 18^TH CROSS ROAD, IDEAL HOMES TOWNSHIP, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560098.

ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER KENGERI SUBDIVISION, BENGALURU WEST CITY CORPORATION, GBA NO.569/570, SRINIVASA ARCADE, 80 FEET ROAD, KENGERI UPANAGARA, KENGERI, BENGALURU 560060

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35040 WP No. 20851 of 2026

HC-KAR

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICES, ALL DATED 04.02.2026, TO BEARING NOS. ARO(KGR)/W-130/PR-1896/2025-26ARO(KGR)/W130/PR-1904/2025-26, PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2016-17 TO 2024-25 (PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURES A1 TO A9, RESPECTIVELY), AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS OF REASSESSMENT AND DEMAND NOTICES, ALL DATED 05.05.2026, BEARING NOS. ARO(KGR)/W-130/PR-1477/2026-27 TO ARO(KGR)/W-130/PR- 1485/2026-27, PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2016-17 TO 2024- 25 (PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURES B1 TO B9, RESPECTIVELY), ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 6 IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has called in question the

Reassessment Orders under Section 150[3][e] of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 and these reassessment orders relate to the assessment years 20162017 to 2024-25. The question presented for consideration is whether this Court must interfere with these Reassessment Orders . Sri Prathik Naidu B, the

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35040 WP No. 20851 of 2026

HC-KAR

learned counsel for the petitioner, argues for intervention contending the following.

[i] The petitioner purchased the subject property under the Sale Deed dated 06.05.1999,

[ii] The petitioner applied for a Sanction Plan which is approved on 31.05.2019,

[iii] The petitioner has constructed strictly according to the Sanction Plan and completed the construction in the year 2021,

[iv] The assessment proceedings are from the year 2016-2017 on the ground that the petitioner is liable to pay assessment/tax from the year 2016-17 for the construction.

[v] The assessment is based on the assertion that the petitioner has constructed 10,143 square feet when the sanction is for about 9,000 square feet.

[vi] When served with the Show Cause Notice proposing

reassessment, the petitioner has filed a detailed response setting forth the afore circumstances, but none of them are considered resulting in an untenable reassessment.

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35040 WP No. 20851 of 2026

HC-KAR

Sri Pawan Kumar, a learned standing counsel for the respondents who accepts notice for these respondents, is heard for the disposal of the petition. This Court opines that indeed there is complete nonconsideration. Ultimately, if the petitioner is able to demonstrate that the construction is completed only in the year 2021, the assessment can only be from such period subject to the limitation on reassessment. Therefore, the sixth respondent, for an effective conclusion, must re-examine all aspects with due opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court intervenes to quash the impugned orders of reassessment restoring the proceedings to the sixth respondent for reconsideration.

ORDER

[a] The petition is allowed in-part. [b] The impugned Reassessment Orders [ Annexures-B1 to B9 ] for the

assessment years 2016-17 to 2024-25 are quashed restoring the proceedings to the sixth respondent.

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:35040 WP No. 20851 of 2026

HC-KAR

[c] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order within fifteen [15] days from the date of receipt thereof with the sixth respondent who shall issue notice extending an opportunity to the petitioner and then conclude the assessment proceedings in the light of this Court’s observations.

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

AN/-