1. The writ petitioner, Mr. Jai M. Patil, owner of Flat No.S-3 of 2000 Sq.ft. situated at Second Floor of Apartment known as ‘Pratham Enclave’ in Site Nos.11 and 27, has filed this writ petition with the following prayers:

“1. To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to restore the Khatha of schedule property in katha No.11, (PID No.100-591-11/A) MLA Layout, Lottegollahalli, Ward No. 100/Sanjaynagar to enable the petitioner to pay tax for the years 2014-15.

2. To award costs and grand such other reliefs or pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and expedient in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before the Court that after the purchase of the said Flat by the petitioner, the petitioner has been regular in paying the Annual Property Tax under Section 108-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short), and was issued ‘A’ Khata Certificate vide Annexure C on 10/03/2010 by the Assistant Revenue Officer of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP’ for short) and after such Certificate was issued to him on 10/03/2010, the petitioner continued to pay Annual Property Tax of Rs. 4,890/- and Cess thereon vide Receipts produced at Annexure D series with the writ petition.

3. The cause of action arose to the petitioner when the respondent BBMP refused to accept the annual payment of Property Tax by the petitioner for the year 2014-15 on the purported ground that since the property in question was constructed with certain deviations from the sanctioned plan therefore, the petitioner’s ‘Khata’ entry was liable to be registered in Form B and be treated asun-assessed property to be assessed afresh for Property Tax.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing the attention of the Court towards Section 108-A of the Act, has urged that the deviations, if any, in the entire building raised by the Developer is his responsibility to explain and the status of payment of Property Tax by the petitioner, the owner of one of the Flats does not depend upon that, and the ‘A’ Khata Certificate issued in his favour is not liable to be revoked or changed by the respondent BBMP. She has also drawn the attention of the Court towards Rule 11 of the BBMP Property Tax Rules, 2009, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Property Tax Rules, 2009’ for brevity) and submitted that the difference between Form A in Khata Register and Form B in Khata Register is only this, that if the Property Tax is collected from the owner of the property occupied in respect of the property assessed to Tax, such names of owners will be entered in Form ‘A’ Khata and in respect of un-assessed properties was to be maintained in Form ‘B’ Register. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that when such Property Tax was already assessed in the hands of the petitioner assessee and he is continuing to pay Property Tax annually and was also issued ‘A’ Khata Certificate vide Annexure C on 10/03/2010, there is no justification on the part of the respondent BBMP not to treat the petitioner assessee as possessing Khata ‘A’ Certificate and to treat him as possessing only ‘B’ Khata assessee.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner has expressed the apprehension that if ‘A’ Khata Certificate is treated as revoked, the valuation of the property may come down and the petitioner may even not be eligible to obtain Bank Loan on the basis of Security of the said property owned and purchased by him along with ‘A’ Khata Certificate. Hence, it is a valuable legal right of the petitioner and the respondent BBMP cannot be allowed to treat the said ‘A’ Khata as non-est or wrongly issued by the BBMP authorities.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent BBMP has submitted that Annexure C dated 10/03/2010, Khata Certificate was issued to the petitioner conditionally and if there are deviations in the construc