MANDEEP BUILDTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MARATHAHALLI POST, BANGALORE Vs. BELAVADI GRAM PANCHAYATH, MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT, MYSORE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-M/s. Mandeep Buildtech (India) Private Limited is aggrieved by the impugned endorsement, Annexure-G, dated 1-7-2015 issued by the respondent-Panchayat Development Officer ('PDO' for short) of Belavadi Gram Panchayat, Mysore Taluk, demanding arrears of the Land and Building Tax amounting to Rs. 52,73,588.00.

(2.) The case set-up by the petitioner-Company is that, they purchased the said property in question from the Official Liquidator of the respondent 2-M/s. Machinery Manufacturers Corporation Limited (in liquidation) in a public auction held by the Official Liquidator under the orders of the Bombay High Court and the sale in favour of the petitioner was confirmed only with effect from 8-3-2012 and therefore bringing these facts to the notice of the respondent-PDO vide Amnnexure-F communication dated 27-5-2015, the petitioner requested the said respondent to determine its liability of the property tax with effect from 8-3-2012 only till date, so that the same may be paid. Instead of determining the said liability, the respondent-PDO has issued the impugned endorsement seeking to recover the entire arrears of land tax in question by informing that as on 31-3-2015, the arrears of tax were Rs. 55,60,770.00 and the liability for the year 2015-16 was Rs. 1,12,989.00 and therefore, the total sum of Rs. 52,73,588.00 may be paid by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

(3.) On a question from the Court as to whether the terms and conditions of the said auction executed by the Official Liquidator of the Mumbai High Court, particularly Clause 14 of the said sale deed, Annexure-E, dated 12-1-2015 was produced before the said respondent-PDO or not, the learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the said document as such was not produced before the said authority, but the fact of the confirmation of sale in favour of the petitioner with effect from 8-3-2012 was brought to the notice of the said respondent-PDO.