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.
NC: 2024:KHC:18800
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
NC: 2024:KHC:18800
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
NC: 2024:KHC:18800
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
NC: 2024:KHC:18800
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
NC: 2024:KHC:18800
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
NC: 2024:KHC:18800
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
NC: 2024:KHC:18800
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
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
the petitioner for having the extent of land entered in the
khatha Register.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DL
CT: JL
