- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23355 WP No. 12306 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.12306 OF 2025 (LB-TAX) BETWEEN: SMT.SOUMYA R.N. D/O SHIVAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT D.NO.2-21/1625/1(1) KODIALBAIL VILLAGE MANGALORE - 575003 …PETITIONER (BY SMT.RACHANA GANESH K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.VINAY N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR MANGALURU CITY CORPORATION MANGALORE TALUK MANGALORE - 575001 3. MANGALURU CITY CORPORATION M.G. ROAD LALBAGH Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23355 WP No. 12306 of 2025 MANGALURU-575003 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.K.KENCHE GOWDA, AGA FOR R.1; SRI.K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 AND R.3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 11.06.2024 BEARING NO.KANDA.V/A5/CR480/P.L.O.182210/2024-25 ISSUED BY THE R-2 (PRODUCED AS ANNX-K) AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE R-2 TO SUBSTITUTE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE PROPERTY TAX REGISTRY MAINTAINED BY THE R-2 IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner, in the captioned writ petition, is assailing the endorsement dated 11.06.2024 issued by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-K. Consequently, directions are sought at the hands of this Court against respondent No.2 to restore the petitioner's name in the property tax register maintained by respondent No.2. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23355 WP No. 12306 of 2025 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 vehemently contends that the petitioner, at this stage, lacks the requisite locus standi to seek any direction against respondent No.3, particularly in relation to the acceptance of property tax. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to demand acceptance of tax payments in respect of the subject property, as the foundational document relied upon by the petitioner , namely the Hakku Patra has already been declared fraudulent by a competent authority. 4. Elaborating further, learned counsel submits that the Hakku Patra was issued to the petitioner by the concerned Authority, but upon enquiry, the Assistant Commissioner concluded that the said Hakku Patra was obtained through fraudulent means. A detailed order to this effect was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23355 WP No. 12306 of 2025 invalidating the document. In light of this finding, learned counsel submits that respondent No.3 is legally justified in refusing to accept any property tax from the petitioner, as no valid right or title subsists in his favour. 5. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner has been challenged in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and that the appeal is currently pending consideration. 6. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that, so long as the order of the Assistant Commissioner declaring the Hakku Patras fraudulent remains in force and has not been set aside by the appellate authority, respondent No.3 cannot be compelled to accept property tax payments from the petitioner. The petitioner’s right to tender tax would necessarily be contingent upon the outcome of the pending appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23355 WP No. 12306 of 2025 7. In the event the petitioner succeeds before the Deputy Commissioner in setting aside the adverse finding recorded by the Assistant Commissioner, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to produce a certified copy of the appellate order before respondent No.3 and renew his request for acceptance of property tax. Until such time, the endorsement issued by respondent No.3 declining to accept tax from the petitioner does not warrant any interference by this Court. For the reasons stated supra, the writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8