A.L. PREMKUMAR v. THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
WRIT PETIEION NO. 57755/2016 (LB-BMP)
Date of decision: 11.06.2018
The Writ petition was for a writ of mandamus filed under articles 226 (Power of High Courts to issue certain writs) and 227 (Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court) of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent to delete the name of the previous owner S. Narayanmurthy in the “owners name and property address column” and issue fresh property tax paid receipt in the name of the petitioner for the year 2015-16 and to direct the respondents to issue a fresh challan in the name of the petitioner to enable to pay tax for the year 2016-17 by giving 5% rebate. Petition was before the HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner had purchased the property bearing Municipal Corporation No.1731/1318/74 and PID No.072- WO629-20 situated at No.74, Prakrutinagar, 4th Cross, 2nd Stage, Bharatnagar, Bengaluru under the registered sale deed on 10.10.2013 from the previous owner S. Narayanmurthy. Pursuant to the above deed, the petitioner had filed an application for change of khata before the 2nd respondent (Assistant revenue officer, Herohalli sub division).
The 2nd respondent transferred the khatha in favor of the petitioner and also issued the khatha certificate on 18.11.2013. Subsequently, the petitioner had applied for sanction of the building plan and same was approved by the Planning Authority. The petitioner constructed a house and on completion of the building, the petitioner paid property tax for the year 2015-16 by issuing a cheque. This was received by the 2nd respondent on behalf of the 1st respondent (THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE) and informed the petitioner to collect the receipt only after encashment of the cheque.
The petitioner approached the 2nd respondent on 21.3.2016 and was issued receipt in the name of the previous owner S. Narayanamurthy and same was brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent and requested for correction of the name in the owner’s column of the tax paid receipt. The petitioner was informed by the 2nd respondent to file one more formal application along with the sale deed, khatha extract and tax paid receipt to enable the change of name in the owner’s column and issue fresh tax paid receipt in the name of the petitioner.
On 22.3.2016 the petitioner filed one more application along with the appropriate documents for and the tax paid receipt and requested the 2nd respondent to make necessary correction in the tax paid receipt issued for the year 2015-16.
On 6.4.2016 the petitioner went to the office of the 2nd respondent to ascertain the status of the application and also to request to issue challan to facilitate to pay property tax for the year 2016-17. Yet again the challan was issued by the 2nd respondent in the name of the previous owner. The 2nd respondent and Office Manager Janardhan had directed the petitioner to contact them on 11.4.2016 giving an assurance for the sought change.
As on 11.4.2016, the 2nd respondent has not considered the request and asked the petitioner to contact him after a week. Later, it was informed by the office of the 2nd respondent that the concerned Assistant Revenue Officer was suspended on the allegation of corruption and that the Revenue Inspector Shivanna was made in charge to look after the day to day affairs.
The petitioner yet again approached the office of the 2nd respondent, the Revenue Inspector., Shivanna and the Manager, Janardhan instead of issuing challan, provided the Commissioner’s phone number directing him to contact the Commissioner. The petitioner tried to contact as directed but was not successful hence he sent an SMS to the Commissioner with a request to take necessary action.
On 5.7.2016, the petitioner again went to the office of the 2nd respondent and requested the above stated officers to issue challan with corrected version of the tax paid receipt. Here, Mr. Janardhan directed the petitioner to an individual by name Ramesh and was asked to talk to him. Mr. Ramesh demanded Rs.10,000/- to get his work done within half an hour.
Thus, on the same day petitioner met the 1st respondent Commissioner personally and explained the situation and he was directed to give a complaint in writing to the Special Commissioner who was assigned with the revenue collections of the 1st respondent. On 5.7.2016 a written complaint was given to the Special Commissioner, BBMP, N.R. Road, Bangalore with all the details about demand of illegal gratification by the BBMP officials through agents etc. This also did not persuade the respondents to consider or pass any orders.
OBJECTIONS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPNDENTS
Here, the respondents stated that the prayer sought in the writ petition had been met with and the name of the previous owner had been deleted and the challan for having changed name has been produced (Annexure- R1). Thus, sought to dismiss the writ petition.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to allow the writ petition by imposing heavy costs on the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents sought to dismiss the writ petition in pursuant of the above mentioned Annexure- R1 as the sought prayer has been acceded by the respondents.
JUDGEMENT
The writ petition was allowed.
The Court held that it was an undisputed fact that the petitioner become the owner of the property and had paid a sum of Rs.6,284/- towards property tax for the year 2015-16. The mistakes, delay and inaction even after repeated representations by the respondents was also held to be undisputed.
The Court took notice of the petitioner’s mental, physically suffering and the expenses of litigation by engaging a lawyer. The Court was of the view that this behavior clearly indicated that the officers of the BBMP were not meant for public service and are harassing the public at large. Thus, in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Assistant Revenue Officer Mr. Anantramaiah (who was in office during the judgement) submitted that there was no provision and possibility in the computer software for changing amount of the property tax even if there is an error. This was found preposterous by the Court and it stated that the software should be designed to serve the public cause and there should be transparency in the functioning of the e-platform provided by BBMP. The computers couldn’t be allowed to become tools to impose illegal tax levies and their errors have to be controlled and corrected by the humans who use the same as tools of public service.
In view of the allegations of corruption the Court stated that it was high time for the State and the Commissioner for BBMP to curb the menace of corruption, which is more dangerous to the future generation and the disease of cancer of corruption, to implement the object and sprit of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Emphasis was laid down for the need of strong legislative, executive as well as judicial exercises.
Apex Court’s decision in SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY vs. MANMOHAN SING (2012)3 SCC 64 was relied to address the aspect of corruption.
The actions of the respondents were condemned and the Court found it fit case to impose costs on the concerned Officer/s who is/are responsible for the delayed tactics even to correct such a trivial mistake in the property tax paid receipt, it was quantified at Rs.25,000/- . Costs required to be payable by the concerned Revenue Officer/ s from their own pocket within a period of four weeks. The Commissioner, BBMP was required to ensure the payment of the Cost in the mentioned manner. Failing to do so would result in the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings against the respondents in accordance with law.
The respondents were directed to delete the name of the previous owner S. Narayanamurthy in the owner’s name and property address column and issue fresh property tax paid receipt in the name of the petitioner for the year 2015-16 as he has already deposited the property tax of Rs.6,284/-.
The respondents were also directed to issue fresh challan for the amount of Rs.7,559/- in the name of the petitioner to enable him to pay property tax for the year 2016-17.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ADITYA G S.
Click here to view your judgement
