Point of law : . Thus, a clear categorization of properties is brought out under the Rules. Notwithstanding the property being authorized or unauthorized, the property identification number is mandatorily to be assigned under sub-rule (2) of Rule 11.

ORDER :

The petitioners in these writ petitions seek quashment of endorsements which place the properties of the petitioners in Form-B register and also seek consequential directions to place the properties of the petitioners in Form-A register.

2. Heard Sri M.S.Bhagwat, learned counsel for the petitioners and Learned Counsel Sri V Srinidhi and Learned counsel Sri S.N.Prashanth Chandra, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 in both in these petitions.

W.P.NO.54098 OF 2018:

3. Petition schedule property was a site in the erstwhile Kothanurgramatana now in Ward No.195, Kothanur-Shreysas Colony. One Smt. M.R.Ambuja had purchased the said property by way of registered sale deed dated 17-10-1994 and thereafter she gifted the property by way of gift deed dated 10-12-2002 in favour of Dr. Roshni P.Rao from whom the petitioners had purchased the petition schedule property by way of registered sale dated 17.06.2010. The petitioners are now the absolute owners of the said property from 17-06-2010.

4. It appears that the petitioners on becoming the owners of the property and the fact that the property came within the jurisdiction of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara-Palike (‘BBMP’) applied for inclusion of their names in the demand register for the purpose of payment of tax. The BBMP assed the property and included the petition schedule property in Form-B of the property register under Rule 11 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara-Palike Property Tax Rules, 2009 (hereinafter the ‘the Rules’ for short). It is this entry of the property of the petitioners that is made in Form-B Register is what drives the petitioners to this writ petition.

W.P.NO.2452 OF 2021:

5. On 25-09-1986 the husband of the 1st petitioner and father of the 2nd petitioner purchased the Schedule ‘A’ property as described in the petition schedule pursuant to a registered sale deed. On 22-10-1992 the then H.A. Sanitary Board assessed on the petition schedule ‘A’ property for the year 1988-89. On 17.03.1995 another property was purchased by them which is described in the schedule as petition schedule ‘B’ property. On 16-05-2012 the 2nd respondent/’BBMP included the petition schedule ‘B’ property in form-B property register. On 15-12-2018 the owners of the properties appear to have died intestate. The petitioners on acquisition of all documents that were necessary for the entry in their names applied for entry of their names in the demand register and issuance of khata accordingly which came to be rejected by the BBMP by two separate endorsements on the score that the properties of the petitioners were never found in Form-A register and sought to be entered in Form-B register. The issuance of these endorsements has driven the petitioners to this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners in both these cases Sri M.S.Bhagwat would contend that the very entry in Form-B being made of the properties is opposed to Section 108A (3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and would submit that the act of the BBMP making entries in Form-B property register in respect of properties coming within its jurisdiction was subject matter of a writ petition in which a coordinate Bench had quashed all the entries so made in Form-A or Form-B property register as the case may be.

7. On the other hand Sri V.Srinidhi , Sri S.N.Prashanth Chandra learned counsel appearing for the respondent/BBMP in both these cases would contend that the judgment of the coordinate Bench was rendered at a time when there was no provision for such entry and subsequently an amendment has been brought to the Rules which now empowers the BBMP to maintain form-A and Form-B register depending on the nature of the properties and would also submit that the action of the BBMP in issuing such endorsements cannot be found fault with.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.

9. The afore-narrated facts, with regard to the nature of