SMT. KAVERI M. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) v. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
Outcome
Allowed
The writ petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Even if the submission of Sri R.K.Kulkarni is accepted, the Town Municipal Council cannot raise a demand on the entire properties which are exclusively used for education purposes as held by this Court in its order dated 23.05.2023 in W.P.No.87922 of 2012. An educational…
Judgment
BELGUAM KLE SOCIETY COLLEGE ROAD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DISTRICT: BELAGAVI SRI B G DESAI AGE: 63 YEARS OCC: SECRETARY R/O: BELAGAVI – 590 001
2. K.L.E. SOCIETY’S G I BAGEWADI ARTS SCIENCE AND COMMERCE COLLEGE NIPPANI TALUK: CHIKODI DISTRICT: BELAGAVI – 591 237 BY ITS PRINCIPAL MAHANTESH HURALI AGE 55 YEARS OCC: PRINCIPAL (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNASWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE AND SMT. KAVERI M. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) … PETITIONERS AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12844 WP No. 103103 of 2025 HC-KAR BENGALURU 01
THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL NIPANI BELAGAVI – 590 002 BY ITS COMMISSIONER … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1; SRI R.K. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED. 13.02.2025 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. The Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned communication dated. 13.02.2025 which is produced at Annexure-E. issued by b. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the the 2nd impugned undated notices respondent which are produced at Annexure- Annexure-E1 to E15 demanding a property tax in respect of property bearing PID numbers 2-3-525- 59, 2-3-525-57, 2-3-525-60, 2-3-525-58, 2-3-525- 56A, 2-3-525-55, 2-3-525-51A, 2-3-525-52, 2-3-4, 2-3-4, 2-3-4-15D, 2-3-4-15D, 2-3-4-15C, 2-3-4-15 and 2-3-4; and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12844 WP No. 103103 of 2025 HC-KAR c. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to pass an order exempting the educational institutions from paying property tax under Section 94 of Karnataka Municipalities Act; d. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to refund the tax collected by the petitioner till date. e. Issue such other writ or order as deemed fit in the interest of Justice and Equity.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that a demand has been raised by respondent No.2-Town Municipal Council, Nippani, for payment of property tax in respect of the buildings belonging to the petitioner, even though they have been used exclusively for education purposes.
The submission of Sri.R.K.Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent No.2, however, that several of the properties are not used exclusively for education purposes, some of the buildings have been rented out for a bank used for the purposes of hostel, etc., where rentals are charged. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12844 WP No. 103103 of 2025 HC-KAR
Operative part
Even if the submission of Sri R.K.Kulkarni is accepted, the Town Municipal Council cannot raise a demand on the entire properties which are exclusively used for education purposes as held by this Court in its order dated 23.05.2023 in W.P.No.87922 of 2012. An educational institution, who uses a premises exclusively for education purposes, is not liable to make payment of property tax in view of Section 94(1-A) (i) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, in that view of the matter, an omnibus demand made as regards the entire property of the petitioner is not sustainable, as such, I pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. A certiorari is issued. Impugned notices issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexures-E to E15 demanding property tax in respect of property bearing PID No.2-3-525-59, 2-3-525-57, 2-3- 525-60, 2-3-525-58, 2-3-525-56A, 2-3-525-55, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12844 WP No. 103103 of 2025 HC-KAR 2-3-525-51A, 2-3-525-52, 2-3-4, 2-3-4, 2-3-4- 15D, 2-3-4-15D, 2-3-4-15C, 2-3-4-15 and 2-3-4 are quashed. iii. Liberty is reserved to respondent No.2 to conduct a survey and identify the 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. iv. In view of the disposal of the petition, pending application, if any, do not survive consideration, hence the same are also disposed of. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 5 Sl No.: 11
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 Municipalities Act — s. 94; Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964.
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.