- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7287 WP No. 103301 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 103301 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI RAGHUNATH S/O. GOVIND BASURTEKAR @ BENAKE, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.4063, KANGRAL GALLI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI-590 001. 2. SMT. REKHA W/O. MADAN HONGEKAR, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. H.NO.310/B, NAVI VASAHAT, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI-590 001. 3. SHRI NINGAPPA S/O GOVIND BASURTEKAR @ BENAKE, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.4063, KANGRAL GALLI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI-590 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R.K. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI SHANKAR S/O. YALLAPPA ASUNDI @ HOSAKERI, AGE: 86 YEARS, OCC: WEAVER, R/O. JADHAV NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590 001. 2. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, BELAGAVI-590 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. BHUSHAN KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7287 WP No. 103301 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER OR WRIT OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED BUILDING PERMISSION GRANTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 SIGNED ON 14.05.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND E1 TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1 PROCEEDINGS INITIATED ON 29-04- 2025 BEARING NO.BGM.LBPAS/24142/23-24/BP FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING IN PLOT NO.6 OF R.S.NO.1386 OF BELAGAVI, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7287 WP No. 103301 of 2025 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7287 WP No. 103301 of 2025 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7287 WP No. 103301 of 2025 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. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7287 WP No. 103301 of 2025 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 regard to the measurement of the property and excess space alleged to be misused by respondent No.1. These are the disputed question of facts which have to be gone into by an enquiry or trial upon the petitioners filing appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. This Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not be in a position to go into the disputed question of facts. It is for the petitioners to approach appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances. 11. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even respondent No.2- City Municipal Council has issued notice to respondent - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7287 WP No. 103301 of 2025 No.1. If that is so, the petitioners may rely upon the same to seek appropriate orders before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good ground or cogent reasons to interfere in this matter. 12. Accordingly, I pass the following order: The petition is dismissed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach appropriate forum or file appropriate proceedings and secure appropriate orders in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE KGK, kmv from para 6 to end CT-MCK