-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT

CRP.NO.1116 OF 2010

BETWEEN

MS. SHOBHA D/O DEVENDRA PASTAY,

AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,

STYLED AS SRI. SATHYA SAI DISTRIBUTORS,

F-23, LAXMI COMPLEX, CLUB ROAD, HUBLI-29.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. D H PASTAY, ADV.,)

AND

HUBLI-DHARWAD MUNICIPAL

CORPORATION, HUBLI, REP. BY ITS

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION COMMISSIONER,

HUBLI-DHARWAD MUNICIPAL

CORPORATION, HUBLI.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. G. I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADV.,)

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF C.P.C. AGAINST

THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.07.2010 PASSED IN

MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.36/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE I-

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DHARWAD, SITTING AT HUBLI,

DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 113(3) OF THE

KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1976, R/W SECTION

471 AND RULE 19 OF PART-II OF SCHEDULE.

R

-2-

THIS CRP COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This revision petition is filed under Section 115 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 questioning the order dated

17.07.2010 passed in M.A.No.36/2007 by the learned I-

Additional

District

Judge,

Dharwad

sitting

at

Hubli,

dismissing the appeal as not maintainable.

2. The respondent which is Hubli-Dharwad Muncipal

Corporation issued tax demand notice upon one Sri. V. S.

Sadhunavar calling upon him to pay tax which was liable to

be paid for the premises Nos.F-23, F-24, F-25 and L-31 of

Laxmi complex, Hubli in the District of Dhaward. It is

alleged that the present petitioner had paid the said tax

demanded upon Sri. V. S. Sadhunavar. Upon paying such

taxes, she preferred an appeal before the learned District

Judge in M.A.No.36/2007 seeking following reliefs:

a)

The respondent may be directed to refund

Rs.1,11,695-00 with damages at the rate of

2% p.m. on the said amounts from 1^st April

-3-

2007 on the date of refund of the said

amount.

b)

The Respondent be further directed to refund

the excess amount of Rs.27,523-00 collected

from the applicant, or so much of the excess

amount which would be even more that may

be determined by the Hon’ble Court in the

proceeding.

c)

The Respondent may be directed to treat the

ratable value of the premises fixed prior to

2000-2001 as the basis for the years 2001-

2002 to 2006-2007.

d)

It may be held that the applicant is not liable

to pay the penalty in the circumstances of the

case in respect of the alleged arrears of tax.

e)

It may be held that applicant is not the

defaulter.

f)

It may be held that the applicant at any rate

is not liable to pay the alleged arrears of tax

for the period prior to 2001-2002.

g)

The Respondent be ordered to pay the costs

of the applicant.

h)

The Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass such

reliefs as deemed fir in order to meet the

ends of justice.

-4-

3. In sum and substance, what she had sought in the

appeal before the learned District Judge was refund of the

entire tax that was said to be paid by her on the account of

Sri. V. S. Sadhunavar.

4. In support of this petition, learned counsel Sri.

D.H.Pastay, appearing for the petitioner, submitted before

me that the petitioner is neither the owner of the premises,

nor the lessee or the sub-lessee of the same. According to

the learned counsel for the petitioner, she is in permissive

possession of the premises under the owner Sri. V. S.

Sadhunavar. He submits that the tax demand notice was

issued 113(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation

Act,1976 (for short “the Act”) and in compliance with the

same the tax was paid. He further submitted that the

learned District Judge has not appreciated the above

aspects and he has erroneously dismissed the appeal as not

maintainable.

5. Learned counsel Sri. G. I. Gachchinmath, appearing

for the respondent-corporation, per contra, submitted that

the learne