- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6782 WP No. 105122 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 105122 OF 2023 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: FAKKIRGOUDA VEERANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & ADVOCATE, R/O. HANGAL, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 459, 2ND CROSS, 4TH MAIN ROAD, RAJATGIRI, DHARWAD 580004. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINAYAK V. KADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF OFFICER, HANGAL, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581104. 2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECRODS, HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI – 581104. 3. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, HANGAL, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI -581104. 4. MAQBOOL AHMED KHAN PATHAN S/O. MOHAMMED KHAN, R/O. BOMMANAHALLI, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI -581104. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6782 WP No. 105122 of 2023 5. YASIR KHAN S/O. MOHAMMAD KHAN PATHAN, R/O. BOMMANAHALLI, TQ: HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI, PRESENTLY RESIDING IN SHIGGAON TALUK, DIST. HAVERI -581104. 6. SRI. GADADHARI, CHIEF OFFICER, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HANGAL, TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI-581104. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. SADIQ N. GOODWALA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5; SRI. SANTOSH MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R6) -------- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO: A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE CALLING FOR MEASUREMENTS, DATED 04.07.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-G ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. B) ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE CALLING FOR MEASUREMENTS, DATED 07.08.2023 BEARING NO. NIL, VIDE ANNEXURE-J ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6782 WP No. 105122 of 2023 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the notice dated 04.07.2023, produced as per Annexure-G, and the notice dated 07.08.2023, produced as per Annexure-J, issued by respondent No.3 - the Taluka Surveyor, Hangal. 2. Heard Sri.Vinayak S. Kadagi for Sri.Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri.Sadiq N. Goodwala, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5, and Sri. Santosh Mane, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the materials on record. 3. Annexures ‘G’ and ‘J’ are the notices dated 04.07.2023 and 07.08.2023 respectively, issued by respondent No.3 - Taluka Surveyor, to the petitioner being the neighboring landholder. It is stated that, respondent No.1 - the Chief Officer of Hangal Town Municipal Council, is the applicant seeking survey of the land. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6782 WP No. 105122 of 2023 4. My attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the agreement to sell, produced as per Annexure-C, dated 29.05.2017, executed in favor of respondent Nos.4 and 5, according to which, they have agreed to purchase 4.32 acres of land in Survey No.648/2 of Halekoti Village of Hangal Taluk. Annexure-D is the registered sale deed, pursuant to the registered agreement to sell. But in the schedule appended to the sale deed, the extent of land is increased to 5.03 acres in Survey No.648/2 instead of 4.32 acres referred to in Annexure-C. The eastern boundary mentioned in the sale deed also differs. However, as per Annexures ‘C’ and ‘D’, the northern boundary of Survey No.648/2, purchased by respondents No.4 and 5, is shown as the land belonging to the petitioner, i.e., Survey No.648/1. 5. Annexures ‘G’ and ‘J’ disclose that, it is not respondent Nos.4 and 5, who approached the Taluka Surveyor to measure the property, but it is respondent No.1 - the Chief Officer of Hangal, who applied for survey of the land. Admittedly, neither Survey No.648/1 nor Survey - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6782 WP No. 105122 of 2023 No.648/2 belongs to the Town Municipal Council. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason for the Chief Officer to apply for survey of private land owned by the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5. 6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, respondent No.5 is a sitting MLA, who wields influence. Therefore, under the guise of measuring Survey No.648/2, it is apprehended that the possession and ownership of the petitioner over Survey Number 648/1 may be disturbed. 7. I find considerable force in the contention taken by the petitioner. When respondent Nos.4 and 5, who are the purchasers of the neighboring land situated on the southern side of Survey Number 648/1, have not sought for measurement of their property, I do not see any reason for respondent No.1 to file an application for such measurement. If respondents No.4 and 5 are having any dispute with regard to the boundaries, they can very well approach the Civil Court by raising specific contentions. It is only the Civil Court, that can determine the boundaries between the lands - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6782 WP No. 105122 of 2023 owned by the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5, in view of the discrepancy in the extent of land referred to in Annexure-C - the agreement to sell, and Annexure-D - the sale deed. 8. In view of the discussions held above, I am of the opinion that the impugned notices at Annexures ‘G’ and ‘J’ are liable to be quashed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Writ Petition is allowed. ii. Impugned notice dated 04.07.2023 vide Annexure-G and the impugned notice dated 07.08.2023 vide Annexure-J, issued by respondent No.3 – Taluk Surveyor, are quashed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE gab CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4