- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7612 WP No. 11588 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 11588 OF 2020 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: GOLF VIEW HOMES LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT L-18, GREEN PARK EXTENSION, NEW DELHI. ALSO AT: 'THE PRESIDENCY' NO.82, ST. MARK'S ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. ZIAULLA SHERIFF, SON OF LATE MR.GAFFOR SHERIFF. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PENNANNA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SRI. SUHAS.T.L., & SMT. PATIL BHARATI TAMMANAGOUDA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7612 WP No. 11588 of 2020 3. THE TAHSILDAR, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 036. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA RAYAPPA., AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Ponnanna., counsel on behalf of Sri.Suhas.T.L., for the petitioner and Sri.Manjunatha Rayappa., AGA for the respondents have appeared in person. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (a) Pass order declaring that the actions of the respondents to be illegal inasmuch as the same have not been proceeded with in accordance with law. (b) Consequently pass order or orders issue such writ or writs as this Hon'ble Court deem fit directing the respondents to remove the marking and obstructions caused by them by installing the iron poles on the middle of the 40 feet road. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7612 WP No. 11588 of 2020 (c) Pass order or orders issue direction or directions restraining the respondents, their agents, representatives from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Schedule Property by the petitioner. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 4. The petitioner has sought a direction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. A perusal of the petition averments and the relief sought by the petitioner depicts that there are disputed questions of fact. Such a relief cannot be accorded in the Writ Petition. The law is well settled that the disputed question of facts cannot be investigated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, I decline to exercise power under the writ jurisdiction. If at all the petitioner has any grievance, it may agitate its grievance before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7612 WP No. 11588 of 2020 5. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11