Back
2016 Supreme(Kar) 498
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
VINEET KOTHARI, J.
Sri Mahesh Kumar M J - Petitioner
Versus
Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition 53331 of 2014 (LB-BMP)
Decided On : 12-07-2016
For the Petitioner: AV Amarnathan
For the Respondents: V Sreenidhi
Headnote:
Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 – Sections 503(1) and (2) - Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 – Section 3 - BBMP Property Tax Rules 2009 - Rule 11 - BBMP has refused to sanction construction plan - Petitioner purchased property in question on vide Annexure A - He had filed OS 6754/2007 against and eleven others in City Civil Court Bangalore - Suit having been dismissed on RFA 219/2010 was filed and appeal was allowed by a judgment and decree vide Annexure C - Petitioner having sought issuance of ‘A’ katha, has been issued with impugned endorsement – Held provisions of Karnataka Municipalities Act applicable to such city municipal area shall not apply to any local area declared as a larger urban area under subsection (1) with effect from specified in declaration - Provided that any appointment, notification notice tax order scheme license permission rule bye-law or form made or issued or imposed under said Act in respect of such city municipal area which were in force as applicable immediately before date specified under sub-sec.(1) shall continue in force and be deemed to have been made issued or imposed under provisions of this Act unless and until it is superseded by any appointment notification notice tax order scheme license permission rule bye - Law or form made or issued or imposed under this Act - Contention of learned counsel for petitioner that respondent BBMP should consider sanction plan of petitioner as if area continued to exist within domain and jurisdiction of erstwhile City Municipal Council covered by provisions of Karnataka Municipalities Act 1964 does not have any force and the same deserves to be rejected - Writ Petition is disposed of
1. The writ petition is directed against the endorsement dated 26.12.2012 whereby the respondent BBMP has refused to sanction the construction plan of the petitioner, as the site in question belonging to the petitioner was not entered in Form A of the Property Register (Khata) maintained under the provisions of the BBMP Property Tax Rules, 2009.
2. The impugned Annexure D dated 26.12.2012 is quoted below for ready reference:
ENDORSEMENT
26.12.2012
Sub: Approval of plan in respect of the property bearing No.14, BBMP No.45/1/14, Khata No. 1876, Assessment No. 45/1, Khaneshumari No.1985/14, situated at Mallathahalli Village, within the limits of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk – regarding
Ref: Your representation dated 14.12.2012
With reference to the above cited subject you have sought for approval of plan referred above in respect of the ‘B’ katha property bearing No.14, BBMP No.45/1/14, Khata No. 1876, Assessment No.45/1, Khaneshumari No.1985/14, but your katha has not been registered in the Corporation as ‘A’ Khata and accordingly it cannot be considered for grant of plan. Hence the endorsement.
Sd/-
Asst. Director
(Urban Planning)
Rajarajeshwarinagar Division
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
Bangalore
3. The Rule 11 of the BBMP Property Tax Rules, 2009 is also quoted below for ready reference.
Property Register : The property tax collected from the owner/occupier in respect of property assessed to tax shall be maintained in Property Tax register in Form A and in respect of un-assessed properties shall be maintained in a register in Form B.
4. Mr. V Sreenidhi, learned counsel representing the respondent BBMP also pointed out that an identical matter has been disposed of by this Court in WP 54836/2013 on 6.3.2015, the relevant portion of which is quoted below for ready reference:
ORDER
“An endorsement dated 18.9.2013 as at Annexure F has been questioned in this writ petition.
2. Petitioner purchased the property in question on 10.06.1992 vide Annexure A. He had filed OS 6754/2007 against Sri Malla @ Mallaiah and eleven others in the City Civil Court, Bangalore. The suit having been dismissed on 10.12.2009, RFA 219/2010 was filed and the appeal was allowed by a judgment and decree dated 11.9.2012 vide Annexure C. The petitioner having sought the issuance of ‘A’ katha, has been issued with the impugned endorsement.
3. Having heard Sri D S Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner and Sri Jagadish Baliga, learned advocate for respondents and perused the impugned endorsement, in my opinion, the petitioner cannot feel aggrieved by the decision taken vide Annexure F. The respondents having informed the petitioner that the property being a revenue site and issuance of ‘A’ khata in respect of such properties being not permissible i.e., till Government issues appropriate order, was notified that as and when the Government order is received for issuance of ‘A’ katha even in respect of revenue sites, appropriate action would be taken.
4. Sri D S Joshi, submitted that the Government has passed the order and the same would be produced in a week’s time. If the Government has passed any order enabling issuance of ‘A’ katha by the respondents, even in respect of properties similar to that of the petitioner, the petitioner may produce the same before the respondents and seek passing of further order on the request made i.e., in respect of the impugned endorsement has been issued. Once the petitioner produces the Government order or the respondents receive the Government order, on the basis of which they can issue ‘A’ katha, even in respect of revenue sites can be undertaken, the respondents will have the obligation to pass further order on the representation of the petitioner.
In the said view of the matter, writ petition is disposed of by reserving liberty to the petitioner to produce the government order which would enable him to claim issuance of ‘A’ katha in respect of the property in question. Expediti
