Karnataka High Court
Nagaraj S N vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike on 14 March, 2024
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:10503
WP No. 3705 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3705 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
NAGARAJ S N
S/O S. NARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
RESIDENT OF NO.32/1,
SHESHADRI ROAD,
GANDHI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 009
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DINESH RAO N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 002
2. ASST REVENUE OFFICER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
OFFICE OF THE ASST REVENUE OFFICER,
GANDHINAGAR SUB DIVISION,
Digitally signed by
NARASIMHA GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 009
MURTHY VANAMALA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 3. REVENUE OFFICER
KARNATAKA
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
OFFICE OF THE ASST REVENUE OFFICER,
GANDHINAGAR SUB DIVISION,
GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANJEEV B L, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH
ORDER BEARING NOS.ARO (GDN)/ W-94/ PR-387/
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:10503
WP No. 3705 of 2024
2020-21 ,ARO (GDN)/ W-94/ PR-388/ 2020-21, ARO
(GDN)/ W-94/ PR-389/ 2020-21, ARO (GDN)/ W-94/
2020-21 ARO (GDN)/ W-94/ PR-390/ 2020-21, ARO
(GDN)/ W-94/ PR-391/ 2020-21 AND ARO (GDN)/ W-94/
PR-392/ 2020-21 DTD 01.12.2023 PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-B1 TO B6, ISSUED BY R-2.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is the owner of property bearing PID No.27-29-32/1 within the Gandhinagar Sub- Division, Bangalore, and he is running a lodge under the name and style "Panchavathi Palace". The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders under Section 144(15)(e) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short, 'the BBMP Act') and the subsequent demand notices under Section 156(1) of the BBMP Act. The aforesaid orders and demands are of the Assessment Years commencing from 2016-
17. Sri. Dinesh Rao and Sri. Srinivas B.S., the learned counsels for the parties, are heard for final disposal of the petition.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:10503 WP No. 3705 of 2024
2. The reason for initiation of the proceedings for reassessment is seen in the following details that are `part of the orders under Section 144(15)(e):
As per return filed As per the report of the Revenue Inspector (RI) 20800 Sq.ft 18500 Sq ft 2008: A 2016: A Capped 2008: A 2015: A Capped Zone:
Zone: A A V- Non-residential buildings VII - Non-residential property not equipped with central AC used as hotels or restaurant. Year: 1996 Self:20800 Sq ft Year:1990 Self:18500 Sq ft Tenant:0 Sq ft Tenant:0 Sq ft Parking Sefl:0 Sq ft. Tenant:0 Parking Self: 1000 Sq ft Sq ft. Tenant: 0 Sq ft
3. Sri. Dinesh Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner does not have a Centralized Air Conditioning [AC] and has accordingly filed declaration, but the assessment proceedings are commenced asserting that the petitioner is running the hotel/restaurant with a Centralized AC. As regards the procedural lapse, Sri. Dinesh Rao submits that if the reassessment is -4- NC: 2024:KHC:10503 WP No. 3705 of 2024 pursuant to a Random Scrutiny which will have to be necessarily under Section 144(13) of the BBMP Act after mandatory notice but there is no such notice to the petitioner. This is an assertion, which Sri. B. S. Srinivas cannot dispute, and the learned counsel submits that this Court may reject the petitioner's prayer for intervention because the total liability is in excess of Rs.40 lakhs.
4. It is trite that when the law mandates that a particular thing that must be done in a particular manner it must be in that manner. Therefore, every action must accordingly be in the prescribed manner and not otherwise. The controversy, and the demand, is because the BBMP Officials assert that the petitioner is running a hotel/restaurant in the property with a Centralized AC. However, it is undisputed that if the petitioner does not have a Centralized AC, the demand will be unjustified. Whether the petitioner does indeed have a -5- NC: 2024:KHC:10503 WP No. 3705 of 2024 Centralized AC is not verified after due notice of the inspection as contemplated under Section 144(13) of the BBMP Act. There must be a fresh inspection after due opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court must interfere and quash the impugned notices and demand, but with liberty to recommence the proceedings. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Petition is allowed.
(ii) The Orders bearing Nos.ARO (GDN)/ W-94 /PR-387/ g2020-21, ARO(GDN) /W-94/PR-388/2020-
21,ARO(GDN)/ W-94/PR-389/2020- 21, ARO (GDN)/W-94/PR-390/2020- 21, ARO(GDN)/ W-94/PR-391/2020- 21,ARO (GDN)/W-94/ PR-392/2020- 21, dated 01.12.2023 (Annexures-B1 to B6) and the Demand Notices bearing Nos.ARO(GDN)/W-94/PR- 387/2020-21, ARO(GDN)/W-94/PR- -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:10503 WP No. 3705 of 2024 388/2020-21, ARO(GDN)/W-94/PR- 389/2020-21, ARO(GDN)/W-94/PR- 390/2020-21, ARO(GDN)/W-94/PR- 391/2020-21, ARO(GDN)/W-94/PR-
392/2020-21, dated 01.12.2023
(Annexures-C1 to C6) issued by
second respondent and the
attachment order bearing No.W-
94/R1/PR/122/23-24 dated
20.01.2024 (Annexure-E) passed by third respondent are quashed.
(iii) It is needless to observe that the respondent would be at liberty to initiate action as is permissible in law after due commencement of the proceedings.
Sd/-
JUDGE DR