- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26458 WP No. 16136 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 16136 OF 2026 (LB-TAX) BETWEEN: DR. B SHEKAR, RESIDING AT NO. 40/15, 13TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, PATTANKAR LAYOUT, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA - 560 003 AGED 73 YEARS SON OF DR. SHARADA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDEEP HUILGOL., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER MALLESHWARAM SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU WEST CITY CORPORATION 5TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE - 560003. 2. OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU WEST CITY CORPORATION IPP CENTRE, 72/4, 16TH CROSS, VAYALLIKAVAL, KODANDARAMAPURA MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU - 560003. 3. GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY (GBA) NO.1, N.R. SQUARE, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26458 WP No. 16136 of 2026 RANI KITTOOR CHENNAMMA CIRCLE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560002 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. KENCHEGOWDA., AGA FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF REASSESSMENT BEARING ORDER NO. ARO (MLW)/W-65/PR-1610/2026-27 06.05.2026 (ANNEXURE A) PASSED UNDER SECTION 150(3)(E) OF THE GBG ACT, 2024 FOR THE PERIOD 2020-21 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1; QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF REASSESSMENT BEARING NO. ARO(MLW)/W-65/PR-1609/2026-27II. ORDER DATED 06.05.2026 (ANNEXURE A-1) PASSED UNDER SECTION 150(3)(E) OF THE GBG ACT, 2024 FOR THE PERIOD 2021-22 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1; III. QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF REASSESSMENT BEARING ORDER NO. ARO(MLW)/W- 65/PR-1608/2026-27 06.05.2026 (ANNEXURE A-2) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26458 WP No. 16136 of 2026 PASSED UNDER SECTION 150(3)(E) OF THE GBG ACT, 2024 FOR THE PERIOD 2022-23 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1; IV. QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF REASSESSMENT BEARING ORDER NO. ARO(MLW)/W-65/PR-1607/2026-27 DATED 06.05.2026 (ANNEXURE A-3) PASSED UNDER SECTION 150(3)(E) OF THE GBG ACT, 2024 FOR THE PERIOD 2023-24 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner is the owner of a certain built-up area in a larger construction, and he is aggrieved by the Orders of Assessment dated 06.05.2026 for the different tax periods. The Orders of Assessment are produced as Annexures - A to A4. The petitioner has also called in question the consequential Demand Notices of even date as per Annexures- B to B4. 2. Sri Sandeep Huilgol, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Pawan Kumar, a learned - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26458 WP No. 16136 of 2026 standing counsel for the first to third respondents, Sri Kenche Gowda, the learned Additional Government Advocate who is called upon to accept notice for the fourth respondent, are heard for disposal of the petition given the short ground that is presented for consideration at this stage. 3. The first respondent has issued the Orders of Assessment mentioning that the petitioner has neither remitted the demand nor showed cause as to why the property should not be recovered despite opportunity offered, but the records indicate that upon issuance of show cause notices for each relevant tax period under Section 150(3)(e) of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 [for short, ‘the Act’]. [Annexures-H to H4], the petitioner has filed his reply as acknowledged by the first respondent's office on 01.02.2026. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26458 WP No. 16136 of 2026 4. The petitioner has filed response stating that the proposed reassessment is on the ground that the petitioner's property measures 4,825 square feet but the actual built-up area is only 2,500 feet and that the assertion that the petitioner's property measures 4,825 square feet is based on the images captured by drone using GIS technology and that there must be an actual inspection of the property. 5. This Court finds that with this reply the assessment could not have been completed on the ground that there was no response, and even otherwise, this Court concludes that though the Show Cause Notices could be issued based on the images captured by drone and the assistance of the other technologies, the concerned officer should have visited the property to ascertain actual measurement and this would be especially so when the property in question is a small portion of a larger built-up area. Hence, the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26458 WP No. 16136 of 2026 ORDER [A] The petition is allowed-in-part and the impugned Order of Assessment dated 06.05.2026 as per Annexures-A to A4 are quashed restoring the proceedings to the first respondent for due consideration but after inspection of the petitioner's property on due intimation thereof. [B] Consequently, the Demand Notices as per Annexures-B to B4 stand quashed. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA Ct:sr