Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO.41786/2017 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. POKAR RAM S/O MR. SERARAMJI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
2. MR. RUGHA RAM S/O MR. LALURAMJI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS BOTH R/AT #4/1, H M ROAD OPP.NIRMALA GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL ST.THOMAS TOWN BANGALORE-560084.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI.M.D. RAGHUNATH, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGLAURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE BANGALORE-560002.
2. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER KADUGONDANAHALLI RANGE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE.
3. MR. ARUN MANORAJ S/O MR. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT #24, LAZER ROAD
2ND CROSS, FRAZER TOWN BANGALORE-560005.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.N.PUTTEGOWDA, ADV. FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS; ii) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE PETITIONERS PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R
Learned counsel Sri.K.N.Puttegowda accepts notice for respondents No.1 and 2.
2. Petitioners are before this Court, praying for a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure-E, bearing No.S.KM.A(K.G.HA)/PR/10/16-17 dated 30.11.2016; Annexure-F bearing No.S.KM.A(K.G.HA)/PR/11/16-17 dated 30.11.2016; Annexure-J bearing No.S.KM.A(KA)(J)/
PR/11/17-18 dated 04.09.2017; and Annexure-K bearing No.S.KM.A(KA)(J)/PR/12/17-18 dated 04.09.2017 wherein the petitioners are directed to pay advertisement tax failing which, it states that action would be taken in accordance with law. Further, the petitioners have sought for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.
3. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Raghunath M.D., for petitioners and Sri.K.N.Puttegowda, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Issuance of notice to respondent No.3 is dispensed with, taking note of the nature of direction to be issued in this writ petition and such direction in no way prejudices respondent No.3.
4. The petitioners state that they had leased out the area to an extent of 20’ x 25’ schedule to this writ petition to 3rd respondent for the purpose of erecting hoarding under rental agreement dated 20.01.2016. It is the contention of the petitioners that under the rental agreement, it is for the tenant-3rd respondent to pay municipal taxes and taxes towards hoardings. Therefore, the respondent-BBMP could not have issued notices to the petitioners. In turn, the BBMP ought to have issued notices to 3rd respondent and ought to have recovered the tax towards the hoarding from the 3rd respondent.
5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.K.N.Puttegowda for respondent-BBMP, submits that the petitioners are the owners of the schedule property and the owner is always liable to pay the property tax as well as any fee including hoarding tax. It is for the petitioners to recover the same from the tenant by enforcing the agreement between them. As there is no privity of contract between the BBMP and 3rd respondent, the respondent-BBMP has no legal obligation to issue notice or recover hoarding tax from the 3rd respondent.
It is only the petitioners who are liable to pay hoarding tax.
6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners are the owners of the schedule premises wherein they had leased out the area to 3rd respondent for the purpose of erecting advertisement hoarding. The respondent-BBMP has rightly issued notices demanding advertisement tax to the petitioners. Since there is no privity of contract between the respondent-BBMP and the 3rd respondent, the BBMP could not have issued any notice to 3rd respondent. It is for the petitioners to pay advertisement tax as per Sections 134 and 135 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and Advertisement Bye-Laws, 2006. Rental agreement is between the petitioners and 3rd respondent. BBMP is not party to the said agreement. Moreover, the understanding to pay property tax as well as advertisement tax to the BBMP is between the petitioners and 3rd respondent. Ultimately it is the owner’s liability to pay either property tax or advertisement tax to BBMP.
7. Thus, I find no infirmity in the notices issued by respondents No.1 and 2-BBMP. It is open for the petitioners to file their objections to the notices and it is for respondents No.1 and 2 to proceed in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
