Karnataka High Court
Smt. Bharathi P Shetty vs Greater Bangalore Authority on 21 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48205
WP No. 29623 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 29623 OF 2025 (LB-TAX)
BETWEEN:
SMT. BHARATHI P SHETTY
W/O PRAKASH SHETTY
AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/A NO 22, 100 FEET RING ROAD
4TH PHASE, 15TH CROSS, JP NAGAR
BANGALORE- 560078
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASAD HEGDE.K.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GREATER BANGALORE AUTHORITY
(FORMERLY BRUHATH BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE)
HUDSON CIRCLE J C ROAD
BANGALORE- 560001
Digitally REP BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER
signed by
SUMA
Location: 2. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
HIGH
COURT OF J P NAGAR SUB DIVISION
KARNATAKA GREATER BANGALORE AUTHORITY(FORMER BBMP)
30TH MAIN ROAD 12TH CROSS
1ST STAGE, J P NAGARA
BANGALORE- 560078
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SUMANGALA GURUDEV GACHCHINAMATH,
ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE
THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE-(1), BEARING NO.ARO(JPN)/W-
177/PR-232/2020-21, NOTICE-(2) BEARING NO.ARO(JPN)/W-
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48205
WP No. 29623 of 2025
HC-KAR
177/PR-233/2020-21, NOTICE (3) BEARING NO.ARO (JPN)/W-
177/PR-234/2022-23 AND NOTICE (4) BEARING NO.ARO
(JPN)/W-177/PR-235/2022-23, ALL ARE ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION
144(15)(C) OF THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA
PALIKE ACT, 2020, AS PER ANNEXURE A, B, C AND D
RESPECTIVELY IN NO.ARO(JPN)/PR/2023-24 AS PER
ND
ANNEXURE E ISSUED BY 2 RESPONDENT AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the show cause notices bearing No.ARO(JPN)/W-177/PR-232/2020-21 for the year 2019-20, No.ARO(JPN)/W-177/PR-233/2020-21 for the year 2020-21, No.ARO(JPN)/W-177/PR-234/2020-21 for the year 2021-22 and No.ARO(JPN)/W-177/PR-235/2020-21 for the year 2022-23, all dated 23.11.2023 issued by respondent No.2 under Section 144(15)(c) of the BBMP Act, 2020. The petitioner has also sought for writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make a re-assessment of the property in accordance with directions issued by this Court in WP No.1867/2024.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:48205 WP No. 29623 of 2025 HC-KAR
2. The petitioner contends that respondent No.2 issued four show-cause notices for the years 2019-20, 2020- 21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 for reassessment of the property tax for the years 2019-20 at Rs.73,470/-, 2020-21 at Rs.73,470/-, 2021-22 at Rs.74,655/- and 2022-23 at Rs.74,655/- in respect of the residential property bearing PID No.57-167-22. She contends that the property consists of ground floor and a first floor, which were constructed in the year 1988. The first floor portion was further constructed in the year 2022 and the remaining portion was constructed subsequently. She also contends that the garage area measuring about 400 sq.ft. was given on rent. She submitted a representation on 25.01.2024 in response to all four show-cause notices issued by respondent No.2. However, respondent No.2 insisted on payment of 50% of the demanded tax amount, which she paid under protest.
3. She contends that the entire ground floor and first floor portions were occupied by her and her family members from 1988 till October 2022. She further contends that in October 2022, the first floor portion was rented out for non- residential purposes and was provided a separate electricity connection. Subsequently, a part of the ground floor -4- NC: 2025:KHC:48205 WP No. 29623 of 2025 HC-KAR measuring about 400 sq.ft was rented out in March 2023 for non-residential purposes, while the remaining portion of the building is in her occupation.
4. She contends that the respondent No.2 without following the due process of law, issued the impugned notices re-assessing the property tax on the ground that the property was used for non-residential purposes. Aggrieved by the above notices, the petitioner is before this Court challenging them relying upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.1867/2024.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the above contentions and submits that the impugned notices have been issued without inspecting the property in question. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
6. This court, in terms of an order dated 29.10.2025, directed an inspection of the property of the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 inspected the property of the petitioner and have filed a report stating, inter alia, that in the ground floor a portion measuring 1451.5 sq.ft. is used for residential purposes and 203.5 sq.ft. for non-residential -5- NC: 2025:KHC:48205 WP No. 29623 of 2025 HC-KAR purposes and on the first floor 1451.5 sq.ft. is used for non- residential purposes and the second floor 652 sq.ft. is used for residential purposes. Therefore, it appears that the property in question is being used for both residential and non-residential purposes. Hence, respondent No.2 is bound to re-assess the property by taking into account the residential and non- residential purposes.
7. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that in view of the inspection mad pursuant to the direction of this Court, fresh steps would be taken for assessment of the property of the petitioner. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed off on the following terms.
(i) The writ petition is allowed in part and the notices impugned are all quashed.
Liberty is reserved to respondent No.2 to issue fresh notices in the light of the inspection of the premises of the petitioner, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 29.10.2025.
(ii) If the petitioner wants to claim any benefit of reduced property tax on the ground that the first floor portion was rented out only in October 2022 and the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:48205 WP No. 29623 of 2025 HC-KAR portion of the ground floor was rented out only in March 2023, she shall produce proof in that regard before the respondent No.2.
(iii) The respondent No.2 shall consider the same, if produced and thereafter issue fresh demand notices and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
(iv) In order to enable respondent No.2 to issue fresh demand notices, the petitioner shall furnish all necessary documents to respondent No.2 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Upon receipt of the documents, respondent No. 2 shall proceed in accordance with law.
8. Consequently, the impugned notices are quashed.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14