- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48205 WP No. 29623 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 29623 OF 2025 (LB-TAX) BETWEEN: SMT. BHARATHI P SHETTY W/O PRAKASH SHETTY AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A NO 22, 100 FEET RING ROAD 4TH PHASE, 15TH CROSS, JP NAGAR BANGALORE- 560078 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASAD HEGDE.K.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GREATER BANGALORE AUTHORITY (FORMERLY BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE) HUDSON CIRCLE J C ROAD BANGALORE- 560001 REP BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER 2. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER J P NAGAR SUB DIVISION GREATER BANGALORE AUTHORITY(FORMER BBMP) 30TH MAIN ROAD 12TH CROSS 1ST STAGE, J P NAGARA BANGALORE- 560078 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUMANGALA GURUDEV GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE-(1), BEARING NO.ARO(JPN)/W- 177/PR-232/2020-21, NOTICE-(2) BEARING NO.ARO(JPN)/W- Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48205 WP No. 29623 of 2025 177/PR-233/2020-21, NOTICE (3) BEARING NO.ARO (JPN)/W- 177/PR-234/2022-23 AND NOTICE (4) BEARING NO.ARO (JPN)/W-177/PR-235/2022-23, ALL ARE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 144(15)(C) OF THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE ACT, 2020, AS PER ANNEXURE A, B, C AND D RESPECTIVELY IN NO.ARO(JPN)/PR/2023-24 AS PER ANNEXURE E ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged the show cause notices bearing No.ARO(JPN)/W-177/PR-232/2020-21 for the year 2019-20, No.ARO(JPN)/W-177/PR-233/2020-21 for the year 2020-21, No.ARO(JPN)/W-177/PR-234/2020-21 for the year 2021-22 and No.ARO(JPN)/W-177/PR-235/2020-21 for the year 2022-23, all dated 23.11.2023 issued by respondent No.2 under Section 144(15)(c) of the BBMP Act, 2020. The petitioner has also sought for writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make a re-assessment of the property in accordance with directions issued by this Court in WP No.1867/2024. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48205 WP No. 29623 of 2025 2. The petitioner contends that respondent No.2 issued four show-cause notices for the years 2019-20, 2020- 21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 for reassessment of the property tax for the years 2019-20 at Rs.73,470/-, 2020-21 at Rs.73,470/-, 2021-22 at Rs.74,655/- and 2022-23 at Rs.74,655/- in respect of the residential property bearing PID No.57-167-22. She contends that the property consists of ground floor and a first floor, which were constructed in the year 1988. The first floor portion was further constructed in the year 2022 and the remaining portion was constructed subsequently. She also contends that the garage area measuring about 400 sq.ft. was given on rent. She submitted a representation on 25.01.2024 in response to all four show-cause notices issued by respondent No.2. However, respondent No.2 insisted on payment of 50% of the demanded tax amount, which she paid under protest. 3. She contends that the entire ground floor and first floor portions were occupied by her and her family members from 1988 till October 2022. She further contends that in October 2022, the first floor portion was rented out for non- residential purposes and was provided a separate electricity connection. Subsequently, a part of the ground floor - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48205 WP No. 29623 of 2025 measuring about 400 sq.ft was rented out in March 2023 for non-residential purposes, while the remaining portion of the building is in her occupation. 4. She contends that the respondent No.2 without following the due process of law, issued the impugned notices re-assessing the property tax on the ground that the property was used for non-residential purposes. Aggrieved by the above notices, the petitioner is before this Court challenging them relying upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.1867/2024. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the above contentions and submits that the impugned notices have been issued without inspecting the property in question. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 6. This court, in terms of an order dated 29.10.2025, directed an inspection of the property of the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 inspected the property of the petitioner and have filed a report stating, inter alia, that in the ground floor a portion measuring 1451.5 sq.ft. is used for residential purposes and 203.5 sq.ft. for non-residential - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48205 WP No. 29623 of 2025 purposes and on the first floor 1451.5 sq.ft. is used for non- residential purposes and the second floor 652 sq.ft. is used for residential purposes. Therefore, it appears that the property in question is being used for both residential and non-residential purposes. Hence, respondent No.2 is bound to re-assess the property by taking into account the residential and non- residential purposes. 7. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that in view of the inspection mad pursuant to the direction of this Court, fresh steps would be taken for assessment of the property of the petitioner. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed off on the following terms. (i) The writ petition is allowed in part and the notices impugned are all quashed. Liberty is reserved to respondent No.2 to issue fresh notices in the light of the inspection of the premises of the petitioner, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 29.10.2025. (ii) If the petitioner wants to claim any benefit of reduced property tax on the ground that the first floor portion was rented out only in October 2022 and the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48205 WP No. 29623 of 2025 portion of the ground floor was rented out only in March 2023, she shall produce proof in that regard before the respondent No.2. (iii) The respondent No.2 shall consider the same, if produced and thereafter issue fresh demand notices and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. (iv) In order to enable respondent No.2 to issue fresh demand notices, the petitioner shall furnish all necessary documents to respondent No.2 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Upon receipt of the documents, respondent No. 2 shall proceed in accordance with law. 8. Consequently, the impugned notices are quashed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14