The court ruled that disputes regarding property measurements should be resolved in appropriate forums, not through writ jurisdiction.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

1. Heard the learned counsel Sri.R.K.Kulkarni for the petitioners, learned counsel Sri.Shivaraj S. Balloli for respondent No.1 and Sri.Bhushan Kulkarni for respondent No.2.

2. Objection raised by the registry at Sl.No.27 is overruled.

3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

4. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned building permission granted by respondent No.2 - City Municipal Council, Belagavi to the respondent No.1 for construction of building on Plot No.6 in R.S.No.1386 of Belagavi.

5. It is case of the petitioner that the legal heirs of late Govind Ningappa Basurtekar @ Benake of Belagavi whose name is appearing in RTC No.R.S.No.1386/4 of Belagavi owns a plot measuring 2 acres 10 guntas. Admittedly on 23/09/1980 the land was converted into non-agricultural purpose and the layout plan has been approved by the planning authority. Father of the petitioners Sri. Govind @ Gopal son of Ningappa Basurtekar @ Benake sold Plot No.6 to respondent No.1 on 16.06.1981 through a registered sale deed. Subsequent to the registered sale in favour of respondent No.1, permission was sought for construction of building by respondent No.1, which came to be approved. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the building plan or permission granted by respondent No.2 is illegal, as there is discrepancy in the plan showing certain extent of excess space and area which is not sold or granted or given to respondent No.1 by the father of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash the impugned building permission granted by respondent No.2.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned building permission granted is illegal, perverse without properly verifying the sale deed and therefore, same requires to be quashed. It is also the case of the petitioners that while passing the said order of granting permission for construction of the building, the authority-respondent No.2 has not seen the recitals, sale deed, contents and the boundries so mentioned and without application of mind, granted building permission. Under the circumstances, he is before this Court.

7. Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent No.1 vehemently contends that he is the absolute owner of Plot No.6 which was sold by the father of the petitioners and the same is registered through registered sale deed on 16.06.1981. Therefore, as the building permission granted by respondent No.2 is based on the registered sale deed and on the application made by respondent No.1, there is no illegality, perversity or any violation in granting permission for constructing building.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and submits that there is no illegality or perversity in grant of permission for construction of building, as it is in accordance with law and if at all, the petitioners have any grievance with regard to measurement or any excess space, then, they would have to approach appropriate Court and it would not be for this Court to decide the disputed question of facts. Under the circumstances, learned counsel for the respondents seeks to dismiss this petition.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

10. There is no dispute that the property-Plot No.6 has been sold by the father of the petitioners in favour of respondent No.1 by virtue of a registered sale deed. It appears there is some dispute with r