1/8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI W.P.Nos.42957-958/2017 (LB-BBMP) BETWEEN 1. M/S. TULASI ENTERPRISES SY.No.104, GOLLAHALLI ANJANAPURA POST BANGALORE-560062 REPRESENTED BY IT PROPRIETOR Mr. P. MURTHY.
2. P. MURTHY SON OF LATE PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT 1ST MAIN, SUNCITY LAYOUT KOTHANNUR VILLAGE BANGALORE-560078.
(BY SRI. SURESH K, ADVOCATE) ...PETITIONERS AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001.
2. BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER N.R. SQUARE, CORPORATION CIRCLE BANGALORE-560002.
3. JOINT COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BOMANAHALLI ZONE BEGUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560068.
4. THE REVENUE OFFICER ANJANAPURA, GOURAV NAGAR R.B.I. LAYOUT, BANGALORE-60076.
5. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER ANJANAPURA SUB-DIVISION BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE-560083.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.K. VASANTH, AGA FOR R1 SRI. T.M. VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE R2 TO R5) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD:26.8.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND 13.6.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-C ISSUED BY THE R-5 & ETC., THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Mr. Suresh K, Adv. for Petitioners. Mr. A.K. Vasanth, AGA for R1 Mr. T.M. Venkata Reddy, Adv. for R2 to R5.
1. The petitioner-P.Murthy, Proprietor of M/s.Tulasi Enterprises has filed this petition challenging the demand of property tax by the respondent-Assistant Revenue Officer (ARO) of the BBMP under the Final Notice Annexure-A dated 26.08.2017 and Annexure-C dated 13.06.2016.
2. The contention raised before the Court is that the said Industrial establishment of the Stone Crusher was set up by the petitioner under the licence given by the Deputy Commisssioner and the Licencing Authority in the 'Safer Zone' which is defined under Section 6 of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 and according to that the definition 'Safer Zone' is always outside the boundary of Municipal Corporations, City Municipal Corporation and Town Municipal Council.
3. He, therefore, submitted that since the Stone Crusher Unit of the petitioner was not within the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent-BBMP, there was no question to levying property tax on the petitioner by BBMP.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court towards the Representation of the petitioner Annexure-B dated 28.06.2017 in which the petitioner has referred to a Notification No.ARO/PR/14/2017-18 dated 13.06.2017 and he has stated therein that certain new areas were included into jurisdiction of the Corporation and from the said Notification only certain areas of the Golahalli village were included in the jurisdiction of the Corporation. The petitioner, in the said representation, has further stated that the area in which Tulasi Enterprises is located is on the other side of the NICE Road, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of BBMP and the due property tax was already paid to the Village Accountant Circle, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk.
5. The said question on territorial jurisdiction of the BBMP is a question of fact. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said Notification No.ARO/PR/14/2017-18 dated 13.06.2017 actually referred only to Annexure-C ‘Notice’ of the respondent-ARO under Section 147 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, (for short ‘the KMC Act) 1976 and the date of Notice is 13.06.2016, which on account of typographical error, the date of Notice has been typed as 13.06.2017 in the Representation Annexure-B dated 28.06.2017, but there is no change of Territorial Jurisdiction/BBMP.
6. He has submitted that the Competent Authority for deciding the Territorial Jurisdition is the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, under Section 5 of the Karnataka Regulations of the Stone Crushers Act, (for short ‘the Act’) 2011.
7. Regulation 6 defines the conditions for declaring the ‘Safer Zone’ is quoted below for ready reference:
“6.Conditions for declaring Safer Zone- The declaration of safer zone for stone crushers under this Act, shall be subject to the following conditions namely:-
(1) The safer zone shall not be located within-
(a) Two hundred meter from the limits of the National Highways or State Highways;
(b) One hundred meter from the limits of major district roads or other roads;
(c) Five hundred meter from revenue village, temples, schools;
(d) The boundary of Municipal Corporations, City Municipal Corporation, Town Municipal Council.”
8. It is true that the petitioner was given licence for running a Stone Crush in the SyNo.104, Golahalli village, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, which was declared as 'Safer Zone' by the Certificate of Compliance-Annexure-J dated 29.9.2014 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and prima facie, the property tax could not have been demanded by the respondent-BBMP, unless the property in question fell within the Territorial Jurisdiction of the respondent-BBMP. But, from the tenor of the representation of the petitioner itself it appears that there has been some change of Territorial Jurisdiction of the respondent-BBMP and the petitioner claims exemption from property tax only as it fell on the other side of the NICE Road with the stipulation that only some areas of the Golahalli village were included within the Territorial Jurisdiction of the BBMP.
9. The question of fact whether the petitioner’s Industrial Unit now falls within the Territorial Jurisdiction of the respondent-BBMP and out of the 'Safer Zone' for which earlier licence was issued to him, is required to be decided by the Competent Authority namely, the Deputy Commissioner first and unless that question is decided at the instance of the petitioner on the basis of relevant Notification or evidence, this Court cannot examine the validity of the imposition of the property tax by the concerned ARO of BBMP.
10. The petitions are accordingly disposed of with a liberty and direction to the petitioner to approach the concerned Deputy Commissioner of the Bengaluru Urban District and the said Authority is directed to pass appropriate speaking orders in this regard after verifying whether the property of the present petitioner still lies in the 'Safer Zone' and decide the Territorial Jurisdiction of the BBMP or within the extended Territorial Jurisdiction of the BBMP, if any.
11. The said Deputy Commissioner, BBMP, shall decide the said question within a period of two months from today and the petitioner is directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner in the first instance on 07.11.2017. Till the Deputy Commissioner decides the said question, the order passed by the respondent-ARO demanding the property tax from the petitioner shall not be enforced by the respondent-BBMP.
The writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE TL Sl.No.29