ORDER : 1. The petitioner – M/s. Mandeep Buildtech (India) Private Limited is aggrieved by the impugned Endorsement, Annexure G, dated 01/07/2015 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/. 2. The case setup by the petitioner Company is that, they purchased the said property in question from the Official Liquidator of the Respondent No.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 08/03/2012 and therefore bringing these facts to the notice of the Respondent – PDO vide Annexure F communication dated 27/05/2015, the petitioner requested the said Respondent to determine its liability of the Property Tax with effect from 08/03/2012 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 31/03/2015, the arrears of tax were Rs.55,60,770/and the liability for the year 2015-16 was Rs.1,12,989/and therefore, the total sum of Rs.52,73,588/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 12/01/2015 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 08/03/2012 was brought to the notice of the said Respondent – PDO. 4. Clause 14 of the said terms and conditions reproduced below clearly stipulates that the liability to pay tax, charges, fees etc prior to the date of sale will be payable out of the sale proceeds in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 by the Official Liquidator, High Court of Bombay. 4. Clause 14 of the said terms and conditions reproduced below clearly stipulates that the liability to pay tax, charges, fees etc prior to the date of sale will be payable out of the sale proceeds in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 by the Official Liquidator, High Court of Bombay. The said Clause 14 is reproduced below. “Clause.14: The purchaser shall be liable to pay taxes, charges, fees and outgoings in respect of Immovable and Moveable assets from the date of confirmation of sale in their favour and that any earlier taxes, charges, fees and outgoings dues and payable to any authorities till date of sale will be paid out of the sale proceeds in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 by the Official Liquidator High Court Bombay.” 5. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the liability prior to this date, 08/03/2012 cannot be recovered from the present petitioner. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent Gram Panchayat, Mr.B.J. Somayaji, submitted that the liability of Tax with respect to land in question is a charge on the said land and is recoverable from the owner/occupier of the land in question under Section 199 of the Act and therefore in the Endorsement given by the PDO to the present petitioner, the said demand has been communicated and the petitioner being the occupier is liable to pay the same as the provisions of the Act which empowers the said Panchayat Officer to recover the same as arrears of land revenue. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the matter deserves to be reexamined by the Respondent PDO. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the matter deserves to be reexamined by the Respondent PDO. It is true that as per Clause 14 of the Contract of Sale in favour of the present petitioner, the petitioner is not liable to pay any Tax prior to the date of sale in his favour which is stated to be 08/03/2012 and though it was mentioned in the representation of the petitioner Annexure F dated 27/05/2015, but since the petitioner did not specifically bring the aforesaid Clause No.14 to the notice of the Respondent – PDO, it appears that the Respondent – PDO has not been able to apply his mind to the said aspect of the matter and by virtue of the same, the liability of tax payable has to be bifurcated on the two parts on the basis of the said Contract of Sale. The liability of tax after the date of sale, i.e. 08/03/2012 is to be borne by the purchaser namely, the present petitioner, whereas prior to that date, the liability of tax, if any, is to be squared up by Respondent Company in liquidation which is being wound up by the Respondent – Official Liquidator. 8. The Official Liquidator attached to the Bombay High Court has also sent an Affidavit dated 26/05/2017. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the said Affidavit are also quoted below for ready reference: “14. I further say that at present a sum of Rs.1,77,43,207/is available to the credit of the Company (in Liqn.). 15. In view of the above it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may direct the Respondent No.1 to file the claim in form No.66, as prescribed in the Companies (Court)Rules, 1959, before the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay, which shall be adjudicated and paid as per the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 read with the Companies (Court)Rules, 1959.” 9. The relevant provision of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and Rules are also quoted below: Sec.199: Levy of taxes, rate, etc. The relevant provision of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and Rules are also quoted below: Sec.199: Levy of taxes, rate, etc. by Grama Panchayats (1) Every Grama Panchayat shall in such manner and subject to such exemptions as may be prescribed and not exceeding the maximum rate specified in Schedule-IV levy tax upon buildings and lands which are not subject to agricultural assessment, within the limits of the Panchayat area: Provided that where an owner of the building or land has left the Panchayat area or cannot otherwise be found, the occupier of such building or land shall be liable for the tax leviable on such owner.” Rules 12 and 15 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Grama Panchayats Taxes and Fees) Rules, 1994 are also quoted below for ready reference: Rule 12: Liability to pay the tax etc: (1) Where the owner of any building or land assessed to tax transfers such building or land to any person, such owner as well as the transferee shall, within two months from the date of such transfer, give a notice of the same to the Grama Panchayat. (2) Where the owner of any building or land assessed to tax dies, his heirs who succeed to the building or land shall, within two months from the date of the death of such person give notice of the same to the Grama Panchayat. (3) Where such transfer of ownership of the building or land or the death of the owner of the building or land comes to the knowledge of the Grama Panchayat, either through a notice under sub-rule (1) or (2) or otherwise it shall, after such enquiry as it may deem fit, substitute the names of the transferee or the legal heirs of the deceased owner, as the case may be, in the records of the Grama Panchayat.” Rule 15: Occupier’s right to recover the tax paid by him Where the occupier of any building or land has paid the tax under sub-section (2) of Section 199, in respect of such building or land, he shall be entitled to be reimbursed by the owner of such building or land and may in addition to, any other remedy open to him deduct the amount of tax so paid from the rent or any other amount payable by him to the owner.” 10. These provisions indicate that liability of occupier is not absolute and he has even a right to recover the land and building tax from the owner. The PDO should decide the respective apportionment of the tax liability. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Vijendradas and another Vs. M. Subramanian and others [(2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 751] has held as under: Section 55(1)(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA) envisages payment of taxes in respect of the property by the vendor up to the date of sale. The liability of the vendee to pay the property tax arises only from the date of sale. However, Sections 85 and 88 of the 1920 Act provide that in the event, the factum of sale is not communicated, the liability of the vendor shall continue. Consequently, a statutory charge is created on the property. A person having an interest in the property, therefore, might have a right of redemption. In this case the appellants as also their predecessor-in-interest R purchased the property pendent elite. They would be deemed to have notice of the sale made by V in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. Section 3 TPA provides that a person is said to have notice of the fact when he actually knows that fact, where any transaction relating to immovable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument. They have purchased the property with notice, apart from the fact that the transfer made in their favour was hit by Section 52 TPA. The decree obtained by the Municipality had been passed under Order 34 CPC. The plaintiff-respondents had a subsisting right of redemption. Order 34 Rule 15 CPC provides that all the provisions contained therein shall, as far as may be, apply for a mortgage by deposit of title deeds within the meaning of Section 58, and to a charge within the meaning of Section 100 TPA. The charge created under Section 85 of the 1920 Act would be one covered by Section 100 TPA.” 12. The charge created under Section 85 of the 1920 Act would be one covered by Section 100 TPA.” 12. There is no conflict in law on the submission made by the learned counsel for the Respondent that the Respondent – PDO is entitled to recover the taxes from the owner/occupier as land revenue, but the question here is, that the respondent – PDO has to determine the extent of liability to pay tax in terms of the fact situation and the contract and evidence placed before him. This exercise has not been undertaken by the Respondent – PDO before issuing the impugned Endorsement to the petitioner. Therefore, the matter deserves to go back to the said Authority for determination afresh of the liability of the present petitioner in accordance with law. 13. There is no material on record to show how the arrears of Rs.55,60,770/as on 31/03/2015 accumulated. Against whom such tax liability was assessed and why for such a long past period the said Gram Panchayat failed to recover such tax liability. All these aspects deserve to be looked into by the PDO again. The petitioner – Company, a bona fide auction purchaser could not have been called upon to pay all the arrears which were never assessed against it in accordance with law. 14. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned Endorsement, Annexure G dated 01/07/2015 is quashed and set aside. 15. The petitioner may appear before the Respondent – PDO in the first instance on 18-07-2017 and may adduce the relevant evidence and documents before the said Authority, who will pass fresh orders in accordance with law about the recovery of the property tax from the petitioner to the extent of his liability in this regard after the date of confirmation of sale in his favour, i.e. 08/03/2012 and for recovery of the balance amount, the PDO can file his claim before the Official Liquidator under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. 16. Once the respondent – PDO passes fresh orders in accordance with the directions above, the amounts already paid by the petitioner shall be adjusted against the said fresh demand, if any. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.