Karnataka High Court
C A Suresh vs State Of Karnataka on 3 June, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:18800
WP No. 2312 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 2312 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
C A SURESH
S/O LATE C.M. ANEPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR,
BHAVANI RICE MILL,
SEEGEHATTI, O.T. ROAD,
SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P N HARISH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
Digitally signed by VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001
JUANITA
THEJESWINI
Location: HIGH 2. THE DIRECTORATE OF
COURT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
KARNATAKA
P.B. NO.5251, 9TH FLOOR,
V.V. TOWERS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001
3. THE COMMISSIONER
SHIVAMOGGA MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.R. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA FOR R1 & R2
SRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:18800
WP No. 2312 of 2024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION DTD 16.04.2022 ANNEXURE-J SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R3 REQUESTING TO ENTER
CORRECT EXTENT IN THE KATHA OF THE PROPERTY BEARING
NO.99/488, PID NO.21549 AND KATHA NO.101/490, PID
NO.131531 IN ALL MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 45019.75
SQUARE FEET SITUATED AT SEEGEHATTI, SHIVAMOGGA CITY
BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner claiming to be the owner in possession of 45019.75 sq.ft of land bearing property No.99/488, situated at Seegehatti, within the limits of the Shivamogga Mahanagara Palike, is before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner, Shivamogga Mahanagara Palike to correct the extent of land in the khatha Register of the Corporation and to issue a fresh khatha in that regard.-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:18800 WP No. 2312 of 2024
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that his father late Shri.C.M.Aneppa, purchased the property in question along with the Rice Mill, which was being run in the name and style as 'Rehamania Rice Mill', from the previous owner Sri.K.S.Rajashekaraiah, under a registered sale deed dated 09.06.1972. It is contended that on the basis of the registered Sale Deed the khatha was registered in the office of Municipality. The petitioner's father died on 14.09.1991 and thereafter, under a registered Partition Deed dated 26.03.1997, the property in question fell to the share of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-Corporation has registered the khatha in the name of the petitioner and has been collecting property tax at the hands of the petitioner.
3. Nevertheless, the extent of land has not been mentioned in the khatha and therefore, the petitioner gave several representations to the Commissioner to enter the extent of land in the khatha document. The learned Counsel further submits that even the respondent cannot -4- NC: 2024:KHC:18800 WP No. 2312 of 2024 deny the fact that the property has to be assessed in terms of the measurement and property tax may be collected from the owner of the property. However, without even mentioning the extent of land in the khatha document, for name sake, the tax is being collected from the petitioner, but the Commissioner and the Officials of the Municipality have declined to enter the extent of land in the khatha Register.
4. The learned Counsel would further submit that at one stage since there was interference at the hands of the authorities of the Muncipality, the petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.08/2012 against the then City Municipal Council of Shivamogga represented by its Commissioner. Learned Counsel, while drawing the attention of this Court to the judgment passed in O.S.No.08/2012 at Annexure-G submits that it is clear from a plain reading of the judgment of the trial court that it was never the stand of the then Municipality that the property in question or a portion of the property belongs to the Municipality. On the other hand, a clear statement was made in the written -5- NC: 2024:KHC:18800 WP No. 2312 of 2024 statement which has been noticed in the judgment that the defendant has stated that being a public authority it cannot invest money on private property and therefore, the allegations of the plaintiff was denied while contending that the Municipality had not interfered in the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. Consequently, the suit was dismissed on the ground that there was no interference at the hands of the City Municipal Council. The learned Counsel would therefore submit that the Commissioner of the Corporation is duty bound to enter the extent of land in the khatha Register in terms of the schedule shown in the registered Partition Deed dated 26.03.1997.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent- Corporation would submit that the petitioner is not denying the fact that his name has been entered in the khatha Register. It is also not denied that the Corporation has been collecting property tax at the hands of the petitioner. However, the learned Counsel would submit that since the claim of the petitioner is regarding the -6- NC: 2024:KHC:18800 WP No. 2312 of 2024 extent of land not being mentioned in the khatha Register, it would be for the petitioner to establish that he is the owner in occupation of 45019.75 sq.ft of land. The learned Counsel would therefore submit that this Court should not issue a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner of the Corporation to accede to the request made by the petitioner and enter the said extent of land in the khatha Register. For that purpose, the petitioner is required to secure a declaration at the hands of the competent civil court.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent- Shivamogga Mahanagara Palike and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has a right to seek entry of the extent of land in his ownership and it is the bounden duty of the Corporation to enter the extent of land in the khatha Register. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Corporation cannot assess the tax without mentioning the extent of land. The law requires -7- NC: 2024:KHC:18800 WP No. 2312 of 2024 the collection of property tax and assessment on the basis of the extent of land, both developed and undeveloped. The provision of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, which deals with the assessment of property tax on the basis of self-assessment also requires the measurement of the land and the extent of construction put up. Different rates are fixed for assessing the property tax, based on whether the land is vacant or a construction is put on the property. Again the rate of tax may vary if the construction is a residential building, a commercial building, an industrial building, etc.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is therefore right in his submissions that the Commissioner is required to consider the representation given by the petitioner for entering the extent of land in the khatha Register. For that purpose, the petitioner is also required to furnish a copy of the Partition Deed or any other document under which he lays claim of title to the property. No doubt, the name of the petitioner has already been entered in the khatha Register and therefore, the respondent-Corporation -8- NC: 2024:KHC:18800 WP No. 2312 of 2024 cannot deny the fact that the petitioner has been recognized as owner of the property bearing No.99/488 since a Permanent Identity Number (PID No.21549) and (PID No.131531) has been assigned to the property in question.
8. In terms of the provisions contained in the Act, whenever such application is filed by a person claiming to have acquired ownership and title over any land within the jurisdiction of the Corporation, the authorities are required to verify physically as to whether the claim made by the applicant is lawful. The authorities are required to measure the property and thereafter, make entry in the khatha Register regarding the extent of land with a specific entry regarding the vacant land and the constructed area. The property tax is required to be assessed, in terms of the self assessment scheme by the owner of the property showing the extent of land with a specific claim regarding the vacant land and the construction portion and the purpose for which the building is utilized. The claim made in the self assessment application filed by the owner of the -9- NC: 2024:KHC:18800 WP No. 2312 of 2024 property is required to cross-verified by the officials of the corporation. Therefore, the Commissioner of the Corporation or any authorized officer is required to make relevant entries in the khatha Register after verifying the property physically.
9. Although, no specific claim has been made in the written statement filed by the then City Municipal Council in the suit filed by the petitioner laying claim to any of the portion of the suit schedule property, nevertheless, during the course of the argument, learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation submitted on instructions that a portion of the property claimed by the petitioner belonged to the Corporation. If that is the case, the Commissioner of the competent authority was required to consider the application/representation made by the petitioner and a suitable reply should have been given to the petitioner. Nevertheless, the Commissioner of the Corporation is now directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for entering the extent of land in the khatha Register. If any adverse claim is sought to be made by the Corporation, then the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18800 WP No. 2312 of 2024 requisite information should be made available to the petitioner and the Corporation will have to also state as to how the Corporation is laying claim over any portion of the property.
10. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to the third respondent- Commissioner, Shivamogga Mahanagara Palike to consider the application/representation given by the petitioner including the representation dated 16.04.2022 and this writ petition itself shall be treated as one more representation given by the petitioner and his request for entering the extent of land in the khatha Register shall be considered by the Commissioner. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. The petitioner is also hereby directed to furnish a copy of the Partition Deed dated 26.03.1997 along with any other documents which forms the basis of the claim of
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:18800 WP No. 2312 of 2024 the petitioner for having the extent of land entered in the khatha Register.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE DL CT: JL