IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION Nos.18840-44 of 2018 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
1. Sadananda Poojary S/o Annu Poojary, Aged about 35 years, R/at Echilthady House, Mogru Post, Belthangady Taluk, Via Uppinangady, D.K. District – 574 241.
2. Medappa Gowda S/o Anni Gowda, Aged about 49 years, R/at Pundipila House, Mogru Post, Belthangady, Via Uppinangady, D.K. District – 574 241.
3. Rumayya Gowda S/o Anni Gowda, Aged about 45 years, R/at Pundapila House, Mogru Post, Belthangady, Via Uppinangady, D.K. District – 574 241.
4. Shivanna Gowda S/o Pakru Gowda, Aged about 55 years, R/at Parapade House, Mogru Post, Belthangady, Via Uppinangady, D.K. District – 574 241.
5. K. Udaya Bhat S/o Ganapathi Bhat, Aged about 56 years, R/at Laxmi Nivas House, Kolabhe Mogru Post and Village, Belthangady, Via Uppinangady, D.K. District – 574 241. (By Sri. Rajashekar .S, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka Department of Revenue, Vidhana Soudha, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
Represented by its Principal Secretary.
2. The Village Panchayath Bandaru Village, Belthangady Taluk, D.K. District, Rep. by Panchayath Development Officer.
3. The Chief Executive Officer & Appellate Authority, D.K. District Panchayath, Mangaluru, D.K. District – 575 001.
(By Sri. M.A. Subramani, HCGP for R1;
Sri. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate for R2; R3 served.) …Petitioners ...Respondents These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 22.03.2018 passed by the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-A and thereby set aside the resolution dated 31.03.2017 vide No.189/2016-17 passed by 2nd respondent vide Annexure-B and etc., These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioners have challenged the resolution of the Grama Panchayath dated 31.03.2017 whereby there was an enhancement in the property tax.
2. Aggrieved by the resolution at Annexure-B, the petitioners had presented an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of non-compliance with the statutory deposit in terms of Section 202 (2) and (1) of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent- Panchayath states that they have not relied upon the resolution at Annexure-B, which is revised demand as regards property tax but, they have relied upon the earlier resolution dated 12.05.2016. Learned counsel for the respondent-Panchyath submits that demand for the payment of property tax are being made only on the basis of Annexure-C.
4. In the light of the said submission, the present petition does not survive for consideration. However, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the fixation of the tax on the basis of the resolution dated 12.05.2016, it is open to the petitioners to challenge the validity of the said resolution in accordance with law.
Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE MBM