Karnataka High Court
Mr B Vinayaka P Baliga vs State Of Karnataka on 1 April, 2013
Bench: Chief Justice, B.V.Nagarathna
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2013
PRESENT
THE HON' BLE MR.D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON' BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
W.P.No.23063/2012 (LB-TAX-PIL)
BETWEEN :
MR B VINAYAKA P BALIGA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O B RAMACHANDRA BALIGA
RESIDING AT LAXMI KUNJ
NEAR P V S KALAKUNJ, KODIALBAIL
MANGALORE 575 003
... PETITIONER
(By Sri SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADV., FOR M/S SHRIDHAR
PRABHU ASSTS., ADVS.,)
AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ROOM NO.436,VIKASA SOUDHA
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE 560001
(REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL
CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT)
2. MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION
CORPORATION BUILDING, LALBAGH
MANGALORE 575 003
(REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER)
-2-
3. DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
9TH FLOOR, VISHWVESHWARAIAH TOWER
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORER 560 001
(REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER )
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri R. DEVDAS, AGA FOR R1 & R3.
SRI K.N. NITHISH, ADV., FOR
SRI K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THAT THE KARNATAKA PROPERTY TAX BOARD
CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION ACT, 1976 ALONE HAS THE JURISDICTION TO
ENUMERATE OR CAUSE TO ENUMERATE AND ASSESS ALL
CLASS OF PROPERTIES AND RECOMMEND TAX RATE FOR
DIFFERENT CLASSES OF BUILDING OR AREA OR ZONES OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
INCLUDING THE AREA WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE 2ND
RESPODNENT AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINRY
HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
D.H.WAGHELA, C.J. (Oral) :
1. The petitioner claiming to be a self-employed, public spirited citizen of India and a resident of Mangalore City, administered by the Mangalore City Corporation has invoked the original jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present petition as a public interest litigation.-3-
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued at length that the provisions of Chapter-IX-A brought on the statute book of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') by virtue of the provisions of Section 102-B, over-rides the other provisions of the Act, more particularly Sections 108, 109 and 109-A of Chapter-X of the Act. He argued that the Karnataka Property Tax Board required to be constituted by virtue of amendment by addition of Chapter IX-A, alone has jurisdiction to revise the rates of tax and also assess all class of properties and recommend the tax rates for different classes of buildings over the area or zone under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation. A prayer is also made in the petition to declare that any tax collected by the Municipal Corporation after the issuance of Notification dated 10.06.2011, in exercise of powers conferred under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation and Certain Other Law (Amendment Act) 2011 (for short 'Amendment Act, 2011) is bad, illegal and ultra vires the Amendment Act, 2011. The impugned Notification dated 19.03.2012 is infact an advertisement by the Commissioner of Mangalore Mahanagara Palike as a part of campaign for collecting property tax under -4- S.A.S (Self Assessment Scheme), which draws attention of property tax payers within the limits of Mangalore Mahanagara Palike that March 31st was the last day to pay property tax with penalty/fine. It also declares that, if the people concerned had not paid the taxes on their property in the Bank designated for a particular ward or in Mangalore One Service Centre, tax would be assessed as per Tax Rules and strict actions would be taken for its collection. Admittedly, by now, the date and period in respect of which the aforesaid notice and advertisement was issued, has lost its relevance and an academic issue is raised by the petitioner in the name of public interest litigation, as to whether the provisions of Sections 108, 109 and 109-A of the Act are subservient to Section 102-B and other provisions of Amendment Act of 2011. The basis for alleging that any revision of rates of the property tax would be in violation of Section 102-F appears to be the higher assessment of tax in individual cases by operation of Section 109, which permits increase in the taxable capital value of the building. Therefore, the present petition appears to be mis-directed or moved with an oblique motive without any grievance of any particular citizen being -5- clear before the Court.
3. Sri.K.N.Nitish, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation of Mangalore submitted that there is no violation of any rights of the property owners and the capital value of individual building is assessed in terms of Section 109 and such value may be enhanced for levy of property tax in terms of Section 109-A of the Act. If any individual assessee has any grievance against such enhancement of property tax, the statutory remedy has to be resorted to by the individual tax payers and not in the form of a public interest litigation.
4. Sri.R.Devdas, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the State Government is in the process of constituting the Karnataka Property Tax Board, in terms of the Amendment Act of 2011 and hence there is no question of the functions of the Board being discharged or not discharged at this stage.
5. In the above facts and circumstances, the petition in its present form is not maintainable and this Court may not be -6- justified in entering into an academic exercise of examining the operation of various provisions of the Act, only for the sake of clarification or declaration sought by the petitioner, in the interest of general public particularly when the Karnataka Property Tax Board is yet to be constituted. Therefore, the petition is required to be dismissed. It is dismissed, with costs quantified at Rs.30,000/- which shall be paid to each of the respondents by dividing it in equal portion within a period of one month from today.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE mv