Jayamma vs The Assistant Revenue Officer ... on 25 September, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 5]

Karnataka High Court

Jayamma vs The Assistant Revenue Officer ... on 25 September, 2008

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

 -r..n...-. "nan n..u-um, ,sIII- KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

INTHEHIGH com up "mum AT BANGALORE w.p.1s73s op :00:
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGAIIORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTENIB  _
BEFORE I _  , W   A F  F C,
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE?' 
WRIT PETITION NO.I67éE [OE   F f .
BETWEEN F  V V F'   

JAYAMMA 2   , 
W/O RAMAIAH REDDY _     
HINDU, AGED ABOUT 710 YEARs,.--»._ j V  _ 
R/O NO.73,3TH BLOCK '- 'I p 
KORAMANGALA-. , , 
BANGALORE 560.095 

 PETITIONER

(By, 'vi sRi?NIvAE,,'.RAGHAVAN AND POONAM PATIL
 Anvs 'NI,f_S;»_,vINDUS LAW A] s)

AND:

1;' ~ THE AESISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
 _HO.MBE " WDA NAGAR

RANGE, BANGALORE SOUTH CIRCLE

'».CORPORATION OF CITY OF BANGALORE

' vv..B;*~\§IG}i1IORE

fIHE.i'~DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (SOUTH)
.. CORPORATION OF CITY OF' BANGALORE
BANGALORE

 - .3 R BABU REDDY

S/O RAMAIAH REDDY

HINDU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

R/O No.73, 8TH BLOCK
KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE 560 095

4 CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE
N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE 2

IN TI-[E HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANOAJDIE W.P.l6733 OF 1005

  

0'" 'f\I\'fI\'fIl)lI-l'\.I JA nun-I-nth ----



IN Tfﬁé HICi!'I COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.}.6'?38 OF 2065
8

no instrument be executed, gve notice of

such transfer to the Commissioner.

(2) In the event of the   .

person primarily liable as   "

person to whom the tile be' the -:  

shall be transferred  

shall give notice ,sueh*- trazgsfef .tl';fe
Commissioner withiii=._oae yeae the
death of the vr1:e~<:eased.V_   1. 'V H H

(£_'af)' Wheiievef, V_  comes to
the  of  Coﬁlmissioner or
  such notice the

 _of Rifle be entereci in

_ the  =

V.'  eerson who makes a transfer

  aforesaiefwithout giving such notice te
_ "v.,4:tilze'-flommissiorzer, shall, in addition to any
  which he may incur through
 neglect, continue to be liable for the

R' -payment of the property tax assessed on the

  ﬁfarlsfezred until he gives notice or
2 '_the'«'.txai:gsfer shall have been recorded in
't;1e.C_orpor'ation registers, but nothing in this

LVJUIH Ur KARNATAKA HIGH COURI»-OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR? OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 'shall be held to affeei;----

M

IN TI-IE HIGH COEERT' OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE WI'. 16738 OF 2905

 



 wwwllilil W 3\ANNA"!'AKA me2a'em.m' W 'mR5Nm"AkA' Him-I comm mm mmmmgam mew eeim

 THE HIGH COURT UF KALLNATAKA AT BANGALORE: W.P.I6'3'3S OF 3085

9

(a) the liability of the transferee for  "  'V

payrne:1t of the said tax; or

(b) the prior charge of the Cor;:'_>£erafi'e:2e 'igzenderf ''
Section 111. V  " "

(5) Notwithstanding arij;w.~.i :iz1g cazmjnéa  
in this Act, in resiﬁeet b;t:i.{.ciiI1g er"
vacant iand beiengi1'1'4'g'Af.e' file?' yjsore
Improvement   
Deveiopnzeﬁi: 4  'er.  ' VVI'¢{2£i*11atz3}<a
Housing   'ééguthority the
p0ssee3s'ie11iA'.A:'ef  15ee1"1  delivered to
any :g:§e1'+;se:3  "'i';v{:-.. of any grant,
allotmeizf' or   Board or meal
e.3_1{;hez*it3; Co_f1cef11e€é,  iiranefer of title of
 =  pefsogi  liable to the payment of
» ;p1V;>pe1:ftye  fshaii not be recorded in the
 .Ce;(;$01*e§:ie:e§'egistere without consulting the

Bfe:a1"dv_e:'1uc$cAa1 authority ceneemed."

 3"), F131" the purpose of this case, Suffice it to notice

 __E?z1b--Sec{ion (1) of Section 114 requires the

 trahsferor and the transferee to give a notice in Writing

3 "to the Commissioner of the City Corperation over the

ehange in right title and interest in the preperty, falling

Waﬂkﬂww 9% »--~-

M

EN TIE HIGH COURT SF KARNA'I'AKA AT }?>A¥GALO15LE'. W.PVE§'.-'3S OF 2805 M

  .A\.@"'1>'.~ swmmm. A2



--I§( W. ..  WW» mwrmwc we m=m.NM¥M%% H3€%H QQURT OF W3a%"£M"ﬁ!€A IWWGH COURT 03*' %.&ﬁNﬁT"M€£% iwﬁﬁ-Q COUR"

' V7f'eC_e:ite1E:tien must neeessarcily fail.

 "$333. HEGH CFJUR? OF KARNATAKA Xi' BANCEALQRE W2 E6738 ii)? 290$
1 2

sought to be countered by the learned counse} for {he

respondents, by pei.n1;;ing out to Am"1ex13:re-F' fem}

notice of transfer of title to contend that the A' prescribed by the (Tiemnaissioner does not requirement of notice of the tI'&1i"1Sf€If:C§I'- contended that the M€ﬂ1OFaﬂdL"&§ of ék'?:a:'i1;i£3? Ai'1I16X1;lI'6~G and the unregietefed_ *§eed Am1exure--H, executed niche . % inéiefytiiiably transferred title to the ime1efﬁAat'ﬁe:" question in favour of the substantial Iegai evidenee ef V'

9. Tljle' .,:ji:f3at the unregistered doeunlents A.x'1i;ex*u1?eVs;s_ "{}""€§; "H" are substantiai legal :_e'v~i»:1_e:<1::e°°~ 033 "£116 trerxefei" of title of the immovable j11v..4_t;uesf:ien, is unacceptable in View of the ' V' L-..___.petitie£;ef'3 c£ef1ié;_;?;e:ef their execution. That dispute being 'pure <;1Lie':;_'3ti0I1 of fact is ixngjennissible of mi:

'1._'_"'a,dj¥jdie3Bi:§_.o11 in a writ proceeding, and hence iihe M 133 THE HIGH COURT GF ZCAREEATAKA AT BANGALQRE WR16738 OF 2005 . . .M.,.._...-.... hvuﬁl Ur mmamucn HIGH cmzsrr <:>3="KARNATAKA HIGH cmsm W mm«aMﬁ§.m' §~§s€.};m M CQUR IN TPE HIGH {TQLIKT GP IQQELWATAKA AT BANGAL("}RE. W.P,16'.738 OF 2095 20 decision of the Civil Cauré in respect of their rights the property in question.

Iv;d'ge%4% f KS {N"f1{£ I"-EGH Cf OUR? OF ?{Af€?_\i'ATA§<lé; AT 1r§.£aI'€{3ALURE WC?' 16168 0}' 2805 sa/«éix §...&£"h%&..ﬂ wmaéawwwmmnwnmmw. «mm mums. M .l4€Vu M... . .. ..

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court