The petitioner claims to have purchased the property being

a portion of BBMP katha No.9/113, KTR/43/14-15, Ward No.25,

Kowdenahalli, in residentially converted Sy.No.133 measuring

east by 112 feet, west by 168 feet, north by 128 feet and south

by 112 feet and totally measuring 16800 sq. feet from the

original owner viz: V Satish by a registered sale deed dated

31.10.2014.

2.

The petitioner submitted an application with the 2^nd

respondent to enter his name in the property tax register

maintained by the Bengaluru Bruhat Mahanagara Palike (for

short `BBMP9) as specified under Section 114(3) of the

Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. (for short `KMC Act

19769). The 2^nd respondent issued an endorsement dated

20.12.2014 stating that the application submitted by the

petitioner will be considered only upon furnishing of copy of the

approved plan. Taking exception to the same, this writ petition

is filed

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the petitioner has purchased the subject property

which is an undeveloped land forming a portion of residential

3

converted land in Sy.No.113 and there is no requirement for

obtaining prior approval from the competent Authority under the

provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act,

1961. Hence, the impugned endorsement issued by the 2^nd

respondent is contrary to Section 114(3) of the KMC Act.

4.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents submits that the katha in respect of the entire

extent of converted land is standing in the name of the original

owner and the katha can be bifurcated only if the layout plan has

been approved by the Planning Authority. She further submits

that the petitioner is required to set apart the portion of the

subject property for road, park etc. and in the absence of

approved plan, the application submitted by the petitioner

cannot be considered.

5.

I have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel appearing for the parties.

6.

It is undisputed that the petitioner has only

purchased the portion of the residential converted land through a

registered sale deed and the said property purchased is not a

developed property. Section 114 of the KMC Act reads thus:

4

<114. Obligation of transferor and transferee to give

notice of transfer.- (1) Whenever the title of any person

primarily liable to the payment of the property tax on any

premises to or over such premises is transferred, the

person whose title is transferred and the person to whom

the same is transferred shall, within three months after

the execution of the instrument of transfer or after its

registration if it be registered or after the transfer is

effected, if no instrument be executed, give notice of such

transfer to the Commissioner.

(2) In the event of the death of any person

primarily liable as aforesaid, the person to whom the title

of the deceased shall be transferred as heir or otherwise

shall give notice of such transfer to the Commissioner

within one year from the death of the deceased.

[(3)

Whenever

such

transfer

comes

to

the

knowledge of the Commissioner or authorised officer

through such notice the name of the transferee shell be

entered in the property tax register.]

(4) Every person who makes a transfer as

aforesaid without giving such notice to the Commissioner

shall, in addition to any other liability which he may incur

through such neglect, continue to be liable for the

payment of the property tax assessed on the premises

transferred until he gives notice or until the transfer shall

have been recorded in the corporation registers, but

nothing in this section shall be held to affect,-

(a) the liability of the transferee for the payment of

the said tax, or

(b) the prior charge of the corporation under

section 111.

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,

in respect of any building or land belonging to the City of

Mysore

Improvement

Trust

Board,

the

Bangalore

Development Authority or the Karnatak