('EsyES"ri T.K.Rajagopala, Adv.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 7" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. vENuGOPALAj"GOwDA1:.T.
WRIT PETITION NOJ4436/2010 (G1M»cfRm' 'Alf
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Munisanjeevamma,
W/o. late Ramaiah, '
Aged 64 years.
2. Munishankar,
S/0. late Ramaiah,
Aged 39 ye_arS.
3. R.Seen'a,€):;I.?:E3»T' _ --
S/01. iate. RarT:a«.i_ejh,. p __ - '
Aged'.37..years,>.
4. R._R,av:,' _ .. .
$4;?O.vIEate Ram'aia__h,H.v
_ Aged 33 E'years.
. -An.aTAre"'~R,/aaiR'e-z~ao.10 (old No.4/1)
V4'-" Cross-,'3._Lékshmaiah Garden,
i\E'ear'*--.Sri'n"Evagilu Village,
Viv€:!~V:V_I_'=.3-agar Post,
2 " B-aungalore ~-- 560 047.
' * :PETIT3:ONERS
AND:
1. L.Muniyappa,
Aged 69 years.
2. Lchikkamuniyappa,
Aged 64 years.
3. L.Chinnanna,
Aged 59 years. _
(AEE are S/0. late Lakhmaiah'}.._V.
4. C.Ramesh,
S/0. Chikkamuniyap'"pa._,
Aged 33 years.
S. Maduramma,.. A
W/o. L.Chi_n.na.p'p.a,
Aged 54 years; . "
All R/0. l\Eo.4--,/21,»4'"'C--roSS,~
Lakshhiaitaiii Gatf':J"en",',t--. "
Near Srinivavgifu'villaigép -- '
Viveiaznagar Positfiy
Bangal'ere*----v 560 404?.'
_ C, :RESPONDEl\lTS
(fiiy M/s. Y.R;Sadasiyva Reddy & Associates, Advs.
. "~fo'r R3. 8-.tR3; """
. V--.Sri .,S.SL:.da--rsana Reddy, Sri K.Venkata Sudheer &
_.S'ri-- l3::;N_;3a'giaVtieesh Babu, Advs. for R2, R4 & R5)
it i._4:'VdThis.'pet'il£tion is filed under Articies 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to set aside the impugned
-.-e._'"-.order "dated 6.3.2010 at Annexure ---- S passed in
A "V--,O*.S...l§lo.10732/2006 by the Court of the XLIV Addl. City
"--CiviE Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH~-45).
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
it -group this day, the Court made the foilowing.
QQDER
Petitioners -- plaintiffs have instituted the suit
against respondents - defendants, seeking reiief of
deciaration of titie and possession in respect of the Vs’u_itv’.A’
and ‘B’ scheduie properties. The petitionersya’:-u.ed.l__:the
properties for the purpose of payment of
S.7(2) of Karnataka Court Fees and
1958 (for short, the Act) asV.if.4.they”‘a_re* agricu*lituraAi lajjnlds
iiable to pay land revenue. ll”P..esp_ondlen.tsi’flied’; written
statement to the suit it yiiasl.lce.ntei:.<ied that. the suit
scheciuie'llllprepiertiesl'arefnotllagricuitural iands and the
vaiuatioln andthe'*.c:ou'irt..l_fee:lpaid are incorrect. The Triai
Courthas rram'edttpae'~:ssués. Issue No.9 is with regard to
cou'rt'**–fee paid by the piaintiffs. Said issue
'trie'd:_;as"i'a:psfeiiminary issue and it has been heid that
the,_.lplilaintifii.éi.V_have not paid the correct court fee and they
lg_are iiabie to pay court fee by separateiy valuing the
'*:i."prop'eArty as per estimated market value as on the date of
the suit. Office objections regarding court fee was upheld
L
/'
/'
and issue 9 was answered in the negative. Aggrieved, the
piaintiffs have filed this writ petition.
2. Sri T.K.Rajagopaia, learned *
appearing for the petitioners firstiy~~contended’:’–that,.4_’_the_
View of the Trial Court that the §:;it’.’sc~iiediiuie’i
have to be valued on the matri§’etV_vaiij’eV_is~oVp’pose’d*V~to*”the * L’
decision reported at .1995V(i}…)VV:'”LSC’C_ STEATE OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHVE’i–i.’::i.TEXTILE MILLS
LTD.). Secondv|y_,:”tt_}e atieen converted
for of the Karnataka
Land tthéettvtproperties are situated in
the BBMP of paying court fee on the
market value of.th–e Apuroperties does not arise. Reliance
“”«…Was.__”‘:p|aa:edi.Aon “th’e”~”decision reported in the case of
NANJUNDASWAMY & OTHERS, reported in
II._R__’2too5pAKARXHC) S.i\l.20. Thirdiy, to pass the impugned
‘yorder, reiiance piaced on the decision reported in ILR
KAR 60 (J.ivi. NARAYANA AND OTHERS Vs.
CORPORATION OF THE CITY or BANGALORE AND
/
I
OTHERS) is incorrect as the said decision has no
application to the present case.
3. Sri Y.R. Sadasiva Reddy, learned adpvocate
appearing for the respondents, on the
submitted that the properties are situated
iimits. The suit schedule properties.-a.re not..a’gric~iii-tiirei.’
lands but are piots as is evide’nt_\froniit_he des.cr’ipAtl:on given
in the piaint scheduie. Learnedtcounsei retifiance on
the decision in the casef–of (supra) and
Submitted that the 5FUDil1:.Q’ned..tA«§i’d’er’t’i’:ni._’* the facts and
circumf;ta’n’ces’f’of th3%e”‘ca’set.”is justified and no interference is
caiied ray. L 2 ‘
heard: the learned counsel on both
and~vl.navinVg””p’e’rdsed the writ petition papers, the
,__point’foiricontsiwdejration is:
‘A isirrationai or iilegal?” \u
“Wheth.ei’ the order passed by the Trial Court on
issue No.9 with regard to insufficiency of court fee
/3
‘n
5. The suit is for the reiief of declaration,
possession and injunction in respect of the two i.teril«.si’of
the suit scheduie properties. The valuation .
plaintiffs wouid show that they h_a.yeg__vaiu’ed”‘iisubject
matter of the suit treating the suit-. as;
agrictliturai iands and have p’ai’d-._the courtufeé; a7ti._’2v5yVtii”nes » L’
the iand revenue with regard relief and
permanent injunction Act. The office
of the Triai Court upor}.”s’crutiny of the suit,
raised objection of court fee
paid onthe”pla’i’:Vi1t.i:::_’ also raised objections
in that–,_ regardii’-“inv.._:ti1egi’i~.,”Ai;vir_itten statement. Issue 9 as
aiready to the insufficiency of court
fee on the f
ifignquiry has takenplace. Evidence of PW–1
the properties soio under Exs.D3 and D4
are ésituatehdywithin the BBEVEP area and the property sold
uV””..j»..i:ndie.r is adjacent to Sy. No.4/1 i.e., the suit
ptoijperty. PW–1 has admitted that buildings have been
is
/’
( 4
constructed after the suit and that the area is deveioped
by the side of ring road in Eajipura. Defendants have
produced Exs.D1 to D44 i.e., partition deed, khata_,e):§tralct,
c
notices from the BBMP, receipt for pa§rMrn’ent;-i._fo’i.___, _
development charges, copy of__ the.'””‘a-ppl,ications,v”
photographs etc. to show that Zthegsuit
situated within the BBMP area.,__ 1Ex.’:)ts, is’,:t’t~:e..ic;az.ette
Notification showing that Eajip_tii”ra:_Villageand’ Srinivagilu
Village and the adjoinViri:gV:,”BDiA have been brought
within the iirnitsaof the~Corporatio_n”.«ofVfiiiityli of Bangalore.
indisptttedly, 7the«§i1§j’ibtopertiesV.are;s,i’tu’a’t’éd at BBMP limits.
No record ‘V’pro’d.nTced* by the plaintiffs to show that
the suit «pro4_pertie’s hafve’:”c<)"ntinued to be agricultural lands
evegnhgfafter inci'bs_ion inithe BBMP area, as on the date the
visuiitiwas insti'ttited.
~_7″.».__”_in_’the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
OThi’ERS.f.”v*{isn.pra), the questions which arose for
‘i._Vconsidera;tion were (1) Whether the land can be deemed to
A i~fj’*ha{ré*~._.been permitted to be converted Rog non–agricultural
/
-\
8
use merely because it was used for non–agrlcultural
purpose although, admittedly, no permission under
S.95(2) of the Land Revenue Act was taken, to do so,’;”~–._(2)
Whether under S.79–B of the Karnataka Land Re.fo_’rrnS’4’i?lct’,’ up
the land vests in the State Government prospectivelyVvfrornf ‘
the date of Notification or retrospecti’ve’i*,*,_from of’.
coming into operation of the Act. ih_eis_sue w,i_th”regard’–to”~.
the valuation to be made and”~vilu:iVa’biiity”‘fee in V
terms of the provisions “tsh,der.V*t’h’e”/lothaving not arisen not
considered in the said’ Vcaise,-fiinv .l’_’o.pi’nion, the said
decision has ‘1’appiicati’o.n -fort”.j_’~d,ete§rhination of the
question whicphharisevfor-.consid-eration on I.A.9 filed in the
Trial Court,” ~
In .case, of R.Al\lANDA (supra), noticing that
th’e–»_,pr’oVpertyV””w_as an agricultural land, assessment was
‘revenue authority, RTC extracts produced
-V show that: it ‘was an agricultural land and was not assessed
“jto the Corporation taxes and had not lost its agricultural
— character, it was held that the Trial Cog’: had committed
/”
/’
9
an error in calling upon the petitioner to pay additional
court fee by filing a fresh valuation slip. While passing the
said order, the Division Bench decision in the case of 3.M.
NARAYANA (supra) has not been brought to the n.oti»ceI.of
the Court and appears to have not been
consideration, the case has been>AHVdecide*d”‘on.the =f_a«:t’ it
situation obtained therein. I i
9. In the case of
property had stood included the'<3or'po'rat'i'onlimits
in terms of a Notificationflissuecl' eéi:ié'r-._to the'"fiEi'ng of the
suit.' A:s"'a'Vl'res'u,lt it was held that taxes
applicalziie"withinplthie.C'orpo.ra.tion limits would by operation
of law andi'u~nd'er_sub~~._§'Section 4 of S4 of the Municipal
Act,V"Vbe-come applicable to the extended area
further held that even assuming the land in
question_walsliagricultural land before its inclusion in the
<._Corporation limits, the same would not necessarily mean
either has continued to pay land revenue or such
land was exempted from payment of the property tax
K
/'
/
10
under the Land Revenue Act. S.110 of the Karnataka
Municipai Corporation Act, 19376 which covers the payment
of property tax qua oniy such iands are registered.
revenue records of the Government and has act’ual!’yr~..u:s3ed4
for cultivation of crops was noticed and it. that”
just because of a iand being inclu_ded..4ginj. the’:i.Cor’pol»a’:fiAon
limits is registered or used for.4_agric”ui_tu’rai puirppsei would
not imply that the said iand co’ntin_ue_s toiipayiandigrevenue
under the Land Revenueéct Land
Revenue Act wouid the property
is brought The appeilant
thereiri-,_Aha_d~ was not paying any land
revenue’inc:tiie_ia’nd’in since for the iand was in
the_(§o”rporatio’ii~i question of the owner being liable
ttoupa~y yvlandtjyrevenue on the property does not arise. The
“m_a’t.teir”w:éi’s.V_e;rarhined with respect to S.? of the Act and it
_ has””bee~n: .heid as follows:
it * ” There is another angle from which the issue can
..u5be viewed. Section 7 of the Karnataka Court Fees
and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 creates a legal fiction
’92
1}
regarding the market value of lands that form an
entire estate or a definite share of an estate are
concerned. A closer reading of Section 7(2)(i3)
would show that not only should the land be an
entire estate or a definite share of an estate-;._:i:’3_ul_t’~».iVt
must be paying annual revenue to the Governr:1:e_nt,__”~
The expression “paying annual revenuVe’1ftoth’e~il_’
Government” in Section 7(2)(‘b’)’–~is. significalrit andkin-.A
our opinion implies that the li’_ai3i’iityV_to _:’pa:yi7i~a.nti.j
revenue must be ciear,»an__c_l subs,iv_sting oi*1’é;Vi.:1Vn cases
where such liability ceasésito exist”o_n”ac’t:ou*nt of the
incorporation of .—the area-. :witi=.i_!1 the”-limiiyts of a
Municipal Corpora’tio'”n.,_ the§.yla:ri{:i-Vicannot be said to be
paying annual revenuelto.Atlie’°Govern’ment. That is
be’calu’se}vfthe’Aiifiabiilityto any such revenue must
be dielernedlitoilhavvepceased from the moment the
lands-its iinclu’clei:l.:’in itheééextended Corporation limits.”
_;’1lo;. The his Court, rightly following the decision in
:of.:3:.’i!iV._ NARAYANA (supra), has held that the suit
alllasth.._b«eeii””_u.nd~e’i’vaiued and the plaintiffs are required to
V. sepa’rate’l:y’vvalue the properties as per the estimated
pmairltetvalue as on the date of the suit and pay the court
fee;’ The direction issued for filing of the valuation slip and
law
/’I’
/
12′
payment of the correct court fee in the facts and
circumstances of the case cannot be heici to b_ev..V_e-ither
irrationai or iliegai.
In the resuit, the writ petition fails nu
dismissed. The petitioners –~ p|ai.nti?fs”ivare’-giarnenii
weeks’ time from today to fiie-fresh Vai21_atioVn”-.sIi’o:and”jpay ” it
the difference of court fee in th.e-;fri–ai”Court.”‘
i i iuaqe