IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.28994/2019 (LB BMP) BETWEEN ESTEEM ESTATE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED NO.73, THE SHELTON GRAND HOTEL M G ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS COURT RECEIVER.
(BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. ADV. FOR SRI CHINMAY J.MIRJI, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001 2. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE NR SQUARE, BANGALORE 560002 REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER.
3. REVENUE OFFICER (SHANTHINAGAR) SUB-DIVISION 12 FLOOR, PU BUILDING, MAYO HALL, M G ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
... PETITIONER 4. ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (SHANTHINAGAR) SUB-DIVISION 12 FLOOR, PU BUILDING, MAYO HALL, M G ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
(BY SRI M.A.SUBRAMANI, HCGP FOR R1, ... RESPONDENTS SMT. SARITA KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R2 & R3.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 02.02.2019 ISSUED BY R-4 AT ANNX-A ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ‘PRELIMINARY HEARING’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned senior counsel Sri. Ashok Haranahalli along with the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that it is the court appointed receiver of the property of M/s. Esteem Estate Projects Private Ltd. and that BBMP had by notice dated 02.02.2019 called upon the petitioner under Section 108A sub-section (3) and (12) of The Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) to pay the sum demanded under the notice or failing which to prefer an appeal within 30 days thereof.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner in fact effected a reply on 12.03.2019 and that the said reply came to be rejected by the BBMP on the short ground the same is belated and beyond the stipulated period of 30 days and thereafter, by show cause notice dated 28.06.2019 the proceedings calling upon for the petitioner to show cause as to why the property should not be seized and sold for recovery of dues came to be issued.
4. Learned counsel Smt. Sarita Kulkarni accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4. Learned High Court Govt. Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 prays for an adjournment.
5. It is not in dispute that the property now sought to be attached is already in the custody of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru. If that be the admitted position, the moot question is whether the impugned notice for attachment and sale could have been unilaterally issued by the BBMP without approaching the court concerned. This is an issue that requires to be gone into by the BBMP before initiating further any action as sought to be undertaken vide Annexure-C.
6. In that view of the matter, this court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be served if Annexure-B and C are quashed and matter is remitted back to the BBMP to consider the objections preferred by the petitioner on 12.03.2019. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed in part. Annexure-B and C stand quashed. Matter is remitted back to the BBMP to consider and dispose off the reply dated 12.03.2019 as expeditiously as possible.
Petition stands disposed off in the above terms.
Learned counsel for respondents are permitted to file their power.
Chs* CT-HR Sd/- JUDGE