(1.) THE petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the first respondent vide Annexures A to A2 dated 28-10-1994 and further to quash Annexure-B to B2 passed by R2 dated 19-5-1998, urging various legal contentions.
(2.) CERTAIN undisputed facts are stated as hereunder for the purpose of considering the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties. The property in question is a commercial complex bearing Municipal Door No. 1978/a, measuring 12 x 50 ft. (360 x 1130 metres), 1978/b measuring 12 x 15 ft. (360 x 13. 30 metres) and 1978/c measuring 20 x 50 ft. (9. 6 x 13. 30 metres) respectively situated at Rajendra Prasad Road, Mandya Town, Mandya. The entire premises is let out to the State Bank of India, Mandya Branch. The first respondent in exercise of his power under S. 103 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (in short 'the Act') has revised the property tax in respect of properties in question vide Annexures A to A2 after following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Act and in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Earlier to the revision of the property tax, the first respondent has fixed the property tax at Rs. 6,000/- Vide its notice dated 17-10-1994. The property tax has been enhanced by the first respondent by issuing the impugned notice at Annexures A to A2 in exercise of his powers under Sec. 103 (1) (d) of the Act read with S. 2 (c) of the Act.
(3.) IT is stated that, said orders have been challenged before the Divisional Commissioner by filing a statutory Appeal under S. 352 of the Act urging various legal grounds contending that, the revision of property tax of the petitioner under the provisions of the Act is in contravention of provisions of S. 14 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (in short 'rent Control Act') as the first respondent was required to determine the fair rent and that should have been taken into consideration as the rateable value for the purpose of fixing the Annual Rateable Value of the building (in short 'arv') that would be earned in respect of the building in question by the owner before either fixing the property tax or revising the property tax. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said procedure has not been followed by the first respondent. Therefore, the learned counsel submits on behalf of impugned orders passed by the first respondent are liable to be quashed.