Karnataka High Court
Sri. Gadam Gopal Krishna vs The Commissioner on 25 June, 2025
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8039-DB
WA No. 100278 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100278 OF 2025 (LB-TAX)
BETWEEN:
SRI. GADAM GOPAL KRISHNA
S/O GADAM VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. MANAGING TRUSTEE,
SRI. KANYAKA PARAMESHWARI DEVASTHANAM'S
LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA KALYANA MANDIRAM,
S.K.P.T. STREET, BRUCEPET, BALLARI 583101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.S. HARAVI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BALLARI CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
BALLARI, DIST. BALLARI 583101.
2. THE REVENUE OFFICER
BALLARI CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
BALLARI, DIST. BALLARI 583101.
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Digitally signed by SAROJA
HANGARAKI
3. THE HEALTH OFFICER
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.06.27 10:45:06
+0530 BALLARI CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
BALLARI, DIST. BALLARI 582101.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1960, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.106611/2017 (LB-TAX)
DATED 20-03-2025 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND
ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR & ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8039-DB
WA No. 100278 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)
The appellant being the writ petitioner, has filed this
intra-court appeal, being aggrieved of the impugned order
passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.106611/2017.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the writ petition was filed on behalf of Sri.Kanyaka
Parameshwari Devasthanam Lakshmivenkateshwara
Kalyana Mandiram, as Trust which is aggrieved of the
impugned notice at Annexure-J dated 23.03.2017, issued
by respondent No.2-Revenue Officer, Ballari City Municipal
Corporation calling upon the Trust to pay the arrears of
property tax commencing from 2014. Learned counsel
submits that the Writ Petition has been dismissed on the
ground that the petitioners were asked to submit a reply,
however, the petitioners have hurriedly filed the Writ
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8039-DB
HC-KAR
Petition without submitting a suitable reply to the notice
and therefore, the Writ Petition is premature. Learned
counsel submits that the notice is calling upon the Trust to
pay the arrears of tax and therefore, it cannot be
considered as a show cause notice calling upon the Trust
to give a reply. Moreover, it is submitted that at
Annexure-A is an order passed on 20.10.1994 by the
Commissioner of the then City Municipal Council of Ballari
exempting the Trust from payment of property tax. In
that view of the matter, the learned counsel submits that
the impugned order is required to be set aside.
3. However, we find from the submissions made
by the learned counsel for appellant that there are two
buildings, one the temple itself and the other is the
choultry (Kalyana Mantapa) constructed by the Trust.
Therefore, it is not very clear as to the exemption granted
by the competent authority under Section 110 of the
Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, whether it
pertains to the temple or it pertains to both the buildings.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8039-DB
HC-KAR
Moreover, we also find from sub-section (2) of Section 110
of the Act that notwithstanding the exemptions granted
under the section, it shall be open to the Corporation to
collect service charges for providing civic amenities and for
general or for special services rendered at such rates as
may be prescribed. Therefore, it is for the appellant to
seek such clarification at the hands of the respondent-
Corporation.
4. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of
granting liberty to the appellant to seek clarification at the
hands of the second respondent-Revenue Officer as to
whether the exemption granted earlier in the year 1994
pertains to the temple and the Kalyana Mantapa or only to
the temple. The second respondent is also required to
clarify as to whether the impugned notice at Annexure-J
requires payment of arrears of property tax or if exempted
whether the service charges are only required to be paid.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8039-DB
HC-KAR
5. The appellant/Trust shall place a copy of this
order with the second respondent along with the
requisition as directed by this Court, within a period of two
weeks from today. The second respondent shall consider
the same and inform the Trust about the payment of
property tax/service charges and proceed in accordance
with law.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND)
JUDGE
MBS,NAA
CT:VP
