Silverline Business And Tech Parks ... vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike on 15 April, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Silverline Business And Tech Parks ... vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike on 15 April, 2010

Bench: A.S.Bopanna

 ~.    x   ..... .. V

   "BRE.Ifﬂ§\'F..EANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

  A' I TIIE JOINT COMMISSIONER

IN THE HIGH COURT OE KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15?" DAY OF APRIL 20 IO 
BEFORE %   % .
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICIE~A.Sg. Eﬁ5!b'¥ j£"4i\.'3_v.E.x"I'VAV.:   " 
WRIT PETITION Nos. 61 
BETWEEN:   2  ' %

SILVERLINE BUSINESS AND  
TECH PARKS LIMITED' '     _ 

A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER :TH'E§f"  'I  S
COMPANIES ACT, 1956, I=~IAvINGI'IS   
REGISTERED ORRICE AI': *  ;
2€)1,BARTON cE'NTiRE  g   " M
84, '--GA'é$TD.HII ROAD
EANGLAORE --       
REP. HEREINBY  DIRECTOR

Mr. ZAIIEDIVIAIIMOOD  _    PETITIONER

{BY M /S"RII\IG  SR1 R.V.S. NAIK,
SR1 T S'II4R*{ANARAYANA., Abvs.)

  J.C. ROAD
. ' 'BANGALORE -- 560 002
 BY ITS COMMISSIONER

V ' "M.AH}ﬂ)EVAPURA ZONE

' BRUHAT BANGALORE MAI-IANAGARA PALIKE
MAHADEVAPURA '
EANGALORE

I5

 



2. Heard the iearned Counsel appearing for the

parties and perused the petition papers.

3. At the outset, in so far asmthe first'reii'efVsougn.t4 "'

against the impugned order it 

learned Counsei for the respondent' would  that r L'

against such demand. if th<§m..jrrt;1eltitioner.is"aggri.eved, an aiternate remedy is 113 of the Karnataka Miinicipai in this regard schedule In would iie to the District """ jnrisdiction over the area concer:ned..'_ T.$.Naik iearned Counsei for the petitioner" coi1ter_1de--d that the appellate provision not appi3}"to*"tiie present case since in the instant »v4pe_ti"t;foners' property was subject to self astsessmientjias contemplated under Section 1 12A of the oriperusal of the provisions, I am of the View that Vddirresdpective of the assessment of the property either .,,_ui'1der the self assessment scheme or a demand made it 4 by the authorities themselves, ultimately the question for consideration would be the demand for tax to be made by the municipal authority. If that be so. Section I 13 would squarely apply whenever there is a made by the corporation authorities. Even a moment that such demand does' not_ :i1efe;r paid under the self assessment scheme the d_ernand':.'can"*-- only be classified as an impro'per.dem_a'n be a ground to be urged the .llp'FtirtherViis7ith regard to the alternate remedy appeal is providedl"'i't0.;f-a Coi.irt,"4 such appeal is an efficacious .alterna'tepremee,dy.. Therefore in so far as the first prayeni jofview that the petition is not " _I11avi:ntai§1Aable. H A """ " 'V ._ to the second prayer in the petition V . for mandamus to issue the khatha certiﬁcate, the .:_learr1ed"'Counsel for the respondent would contend that .l thletlendorsernent issued by the respondent is justified in t O. 5 as much as the endorsement itself would indicate that the petitioner could apply for the khatha after the tax amount is cleared. It is pointed out that if there is..any alienation in the meanwhile, the interest corporation would suffer and therefore the H issued is justified. However, the l;earn'ed C«ou_:n_sel._for 'then':

petitioner would point" llrightliis not available to the responltleln'tsl§' that even for assessmentljand llproperty, the prerequisite' such demand is madVe"is' and therefore in such certificate cannot be deniec'l_._v reg-jardtl fife iearned Counsel also places a j1,t<fl'g'rr'ieVnt of this Court in the case of ﬁrs. COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF (19749) KAR.L.J. 4375). A perusal of saidjudgment wouid indicate that such decision it T:.'V;.ras.._rendered under section 106 of the Bangalore City Mtlnicipai Corporation Act, 1949. This Court While i it accordingly quashed. The respondents are directed to issue the extract of the khatha certiﬁcate which"'--will remain subject to the provisions contained 3 Section 114 of the Act. The request of shall be complied with by expeditiously as possible but not llat_er~-- thaajlfoulr lweielis from the date on which the ce-rtiiiedl"copy of'this.»vorder is furnished to the lrespondeptsl; e. _ V

6. al_ternate"'remedy of appeal since I have petitioner would have the petitioner shall do so within a of from the date of receipt of a lofthis and if the appeal is ﬁled Within the said _Vperiod--,,:the District Court shali consider the same the period of limitation prescribed [since the,petitioner was agitating his remedy before this ll..jjConi1*t, contentions of the parties are left open to be in the appeal. $3' ,-

In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

Akc/bms

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court