IN THE HIGH COURT op MRNATAEQA {j "
CIRCUIT BENCH AT:Df'I.&RWfA\.§ '." %
IDATED THIS THE gm DAY oi:AsE%m'EMB--g§,.'%,gQ§§ /Mi'
BEF(_§'R.,§.' 2* 'A %
THE HONTBLE MR.J§i4E§IfEf3E2" .1; R;?\.MANNA. §
.<;.e.vr«o-846
BETWEEN: V V
S?§ m.-Vhiahamaflsi V"
Major, ooc: bi'1siI1<é$s "
R/o
Anandauagar'ma;in _
Old-Hubivi . -- * _ "
Hubli '' 4' . ' .. Petitioner
(By shgipad Associates, Advs)
H:.;ti}i¢.DVhj -- Corporation
Rep'-by-its Coxigznissioncr
Respondent
%[ -(By Srzi. R" Ghevadhar, Adv)
. Tfuis petition is filed under Section 115 cm against the
ju_d.g:m€::i1: and order dated 27~9--»20(}6 passed in Misc.Appca1
.._N'o.6(3/2003 on the file of the I Add1.Dist:rict Judge, Dharwad
_ ...5ir1;ing at Hubli dismissing the Miscfippcal as barred by
"'-__li;initatio11.
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court
V. made: the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the ipetitioneti tin-.
judgment and order dated 27j9–20{56.__
No.60/2003 on the file of mc’1’1tA;&a1.Di§n-igt ~tJu:igue;VV>4’Vf)’hs1wad’V’
sitfing at E-Iubii and also setjasidte ‘ ‘ihe~”tesolutio;n
No.2841, Subject No.26″”‘dafah’teei by the
Standing Commtttee of
2. {the owner of house
property Anandnagar Main
Road, “of house tax, the respondent
has of the peti1:ione1’s property at
Rs.3t’:§.t;)CI(9″)f.– stood at Rs.4,800/-. Thezefore, the
a notice dated 28~3–1996 demanding the
Rs. 11,247/- on the ratable value of
t _Rs.36′;f)O0.;’4p,’n’e The petitioner has addressed a letter dated
Z. to the Comm1’ss?:oner, Hubli Dharwad City
stating that during the previous year, he has paid
Vtheuiannual tax of Rs.1,523/- at the ratable value of Rs.4,80()/-
sought reduction in the proposed annual tax. He also
filed a representation before the Standing Committee
chaflengng the notice dated 28-3-1996 , accordingly resolution
No.2841 was passed by the Standing V’
2900 oonfixming the tax assessedv.-b’yo~–t11e Bio
respect of petitionefs property. ”
Misc.Appeal No.60] 2003 befoIe–f}ire_ V
Dharwad sitting at Hubli the atioi7esa1b..:iesolufion
passed by the Standifigit T the respondent
Corporation, which gppeai’ eaetie V mixed Hence, this
appeal’ _. .4 4. K ..
3. Municipal
CoIpoI’a’i%vivons_1ies’ to the District Court having
ju;risdictioii1,._ taken by the Standing
Commitieef Iii prefer the appeal before the District
iviudgue’, vpa’ iiiii dirty is expected to deposit the admitted
herein has not deposited the adinitted tax.
Witiciozit the said admitted tax, he cannot prosecute
” chaliengng the order passed by the Standing
Therefore, the Court beiow is right in dismissing
K appeal holding that appellant has not complied with the
:.”m.a:odatory provisions of the Rule 19 of the Karnataka
Municipal Corporations Taxation Rules. Further the Court
below is right in holding that there is a delay in fiiing the
appeal which has not been properly explained. Admittedly the
Standing Committee passed a resolution dated
No.2841 confimfing the notice sent the ”
the appeal came to be filed only 03:; “t’;’:1_¢
result of the Standing ‘hee1: S1=;£:tV,VVtr$ L’
appellant on 8-5200} itself. seriously
disputed by the pefifiofifi4;” %’%SPfi¥i#§.eflt’COI’P0rafiOfl by
takixxg inte CO31SidACI’a1iOI},.Q1:t.’: by it to the
peti1:iont’:r’s the Standing
Committee ‘V J has passed a
detailed The Court below
by mlying on tiie in ILR 2001 KAR. 262 «$5
20001 KCCB 228, the appeal. There are
nc}:’:g;ii)a.1;d§s Eiixtcifcrc send” order. Hence, the appeal
35/:
Iudgfi
is dis21::_..iéscd.= ~ ”