K.L.E. COLLEGE OF COMMERCE, B.V.B. CAMPUS, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI, BY ITS PRINCIPAL, SMT v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, EQUITY
Outcome
Allowed
The Writ Petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The lis in the above matter is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of the Karnataka Lingayat Education Society, Belgaum & Anr., vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr.,1 This Court has categorically held that the educational institution is exempted…
- Para 66. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is allowed. ii. It is declared that the properties of the petitioners which are exclusively used for educational purposes could be exempt from making payment of property taxes under Section 110(1)(i) of the Karnataka…
Judgment
B.V.B. CAMPUS, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI, BY ITS PRINCIPAL, SMT. SUPRITA M. LAGALI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PRINCIPAL, R/O. B.V.B. CAMPUS, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.
THE KARNATAKA LINGAYAT EDUCATION SOCIETY, BELGAUM, KLE SCOIETY, COLLEGE ROAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI, SRI. B.G. DESAI, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: SECRETARY, R/O. BELAGAVI-590001. …PETITIONERS GIRIJA A BYAHATTI GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH & SMT. GAYATRI S.R., ADVOCATES) And: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHAN SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-01.
2. THE HUBLI-DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, R/BY ITS COMMISSIONER, HUBLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1; SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2943 WP No. 101033 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT PETITIONER NO.1 BEING AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION IS EXEMPTED FROM PAYING PROPERTY TAX UNDER SECTION 110(1)(i) OF KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT 1976 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY BEARING PID NO.26/1505 SITUATED IN HUBLI; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO REFUND THE TAX COLLECTED BY THE PETITIONER TILL DATE; ISSUE SUCH OTHER WRIT OR ORDER AS DEEMED FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent No.1. Sri. G. I. Gachchinamath, learned counsel, accepts notice for respondent No.2.
2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Declare institution that petitioner No.1 being an educational paying property tax under Section 110(1)(i) Of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act 1976 in respect of the property bearing PID No.26/1505 situated in Hubli; is exempted b. c. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to refund the tax collected by the petitioner till date; Issue such other writ or order as deemed fit in the interest of Justice and Equity. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2943 WP No. 101033 of 2025
The petitioner No.2 claims to be a Society involved in educational activities. Petitioner No.1 is one of the colleges run by the petitioner No.2 Society. On a demand being made by respondent No.2, the petitioners have made payment of municipal taxes in respect of property bearing PID No.26/1505 situated in Hubballi. The petitioners are before this Court contending the said demand made was unjustified. The demand having been made under protest, the amount is required to be refunded to the petitioners.
The lis in the above matter is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of the Karnataka Lingayat Education Society, Belgaum & Anr., vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr.,1 This Court has categorically held that the educational institution is exempted from the property taxes under Section 94(1-A)(i) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, 1 W.P.No.100260/2025 dated 23.1.2025 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2943 WP No. 101033 of 2025 which is in pari materia with Section 110(1) (i) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976.
In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the Municipal Corporation not being entitled for collection of property taxes in respect of the education institution, the payment made by the petitioners under protest is required to be refunded to the petitioners.
Operative part
Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is allowed. ii. It is declared that the properties of the petitioners which are exclusively used for educational purposes could be exempt from making payment of property taxes under Section 110(1)(i) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act,
1976. However, if there is any portion of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2943 WP No. 101033 of 2025 building, which is used for non-education purposes, the Society would be required to make payment of property relation thereto. iii. A Mandamus is issued directing respondent No.2 to refund the tax collected from the petitioners within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. iv. Liberty is reserved to respondent No.2 to conduct a survey and identify properties which are not exclusively used for education purposes and raise demand in respect of those properties which are used for commercial purposes and not used exclusively for education purposes. v. Needless to say the refund is to be made of the amount in excess of the demand made in terms of the liberty reserved. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2943 WP No. 101033 of 2025 In view of disposal of the main petition, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration. Hence, the same stands disposed of. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Writ Petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 — s. 110(1)(i); Ai of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964; Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 — s. 110(1)(i).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.