.E..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BA.1'fGAL{ORE
DA'I'E.£) THIS THE' 11th DAY op' AUGUST,
BEFORE
THE HoN'BLE: MRJUSTICIE EAR-1_MG PiAN" RE'}3DY
WRIT PETITEON No. 155693QF'32Oi)7 _
BETWEEN
N RAMABASAPi"A _ : _ '. .
S10 NANDEESHWARAPP3~. ' _ 1. 1
51 YEARS, OCC AGRIcUL'rUR:S'3' :
R/O SHIVAKRUPAVNILAYPL'f '
KARAHALLI \'ILL>.'\{}E ._ "
TQ DEvANAHALLi;jL__._V_ ~ 4 _
DIS? BAN GALQR,e;"'RuRAL;i'.-- " . V-
... PET'I'§'lONER
(By M/3 : 'ALMT 1,£.f.GAL,"€;i§1. RAMESH WQDEYAR, ADV )
.....
OFFICER
; 2;”
. BANGALORE RURAL ZILLA PANCHAYATH
KlfI3NiPEGO’UDA ROAD
BAi’fiGALGRE~560009
* L 1- 4. u SECRETARY
— ..=KARA§~IALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH
AT’ KARAHALLI, TQ: DEVANAHALLE
ms? BANGALCJRE RURAL
RESPONDEENTS
(8); Sn: G RAMACHANDRAPPA, ADV ma R2 }
-3…
provides for tax on lands not subject to _
assessment at the maximum rate of v ‘V
annum for every 100 sq.mtr. “ef'”1evy
controlled by the Péfiei’iayatf: *
Panchayat Taxes and Fees) short the
Ruies. Chapter 11 of the prmedexe
for levying taxes on requiring the
Grama ievy taxes and
3 resoiution by
notice board, etc; Rule 4
pmvides fer levy of taxes and fees under
subseetien “~e:f_____$ee£:i0n 199 of the Act; Rule 5
of tax and Ruie 6 exemption, Ruie 7′
ijrevieies’ jgyfepazfizg an assessment iist: and Ruie 8
exteufxds” oppertunity by way of objections to the
A V.:eja.ss;essment list; Rule 9 is ibr inspection of assessment
iist, whiie Rule 10 reiates to authentication ei’
‘ assessment ii-st. Rule 39 provides for an appeal unéer
Seefion 20}. to lie to the Zilia Panchayat, in respect of
:;a.£ »
-3-
either prescribed by the ruie or set out in
‘I’herefo;’e, the foundation of the petitioner’s _
his self assessment requires to be aecep_ted,. }egs ~ V. ‘V
to stand, in law and as a ecéjlsequenee; the
preferred te the Zilia Panehayat finder’ *
Rules, was incompetent hsive been
entertained. The Annexure~A
though makes claim of the
petitioner, _ the correct
decisien te3’di.sije’ifs;~’,s”tl1etV :-1;j)’;)ea1.
_ 3;. €iXeI’CiSe Of the petitioner to seek self
”’–assessment of on the imrnovabie properties
on the premise that the State
had issued a eireuiar (it. 24.5.2003
A’ ‘ V’fi.Annexu.re»C, in my considered opinion is miseoneeived.
. «’Neif:her the State Government nor an authority or any
-»Depar’a:11eI:t of the State, are empowered either under
the Act or the Ruies to issue Circulars reiatmg te self
-0-
assessment of tax over the lands and b11i1d:§r:g§V’:
within the territorial jurisdiction of (}ra:1;;:1a _” .,
it is the Act and the Ruies a1en6:::,fl’:a’ip:;9eveii-..
matter ofassessment of ¥:)zV1j1¢i}4’ings’£a;”jd land:-§’Vat_”‘ ;
the hands of the Grama V
4. If the e”i5.’:g;1.’}€;}::}ayat makes a
demand. for gafixient V’ and if the
petitioner is’ V€i:f£A1e;~ftioI_1 the same in an
ap;)1″op;’ia”i;e.’VI”§§§;’.z;1l. event, the Grama
Pmnheyat’ er’ ,eo.n&”deri:1g the paitionefs
appeal/0bjec:ti_on,sV s}};’:_é’JI’~*”»LVnot. be influenced by the
v fi£K3§ef3(gs»_A–.efeeQrdeei order Armexure-A of the Chief
Ziiia Panehayat
mi: petitioil is, aeeordirgly rejected.
1 Sd/-
F I Iudge
in.
Y?