Writ courts may relegate disputed land identity and acquisition extent claims for factual adjudication.

The appellant claimed an extent of land in Survey No. 42, Sampigehalli Village, which he contended had not been acquired for the Arkavathi Layout.

He relied on the acquisition notifications, a registered partition deed, a conversion order, revenue records and a later release deed.

The BDA disputed his claim. In the underlying writ petition, the Single Judge had directed a joint survey; the resulting report indicated that the claimed land formed part of the acquired area.

The Single Judge disposed of the petition, leaving the appellant to pursue remedies before the competent forum because the dispute involved questions of fact. The appellant challenged that order in this appeal.

1. Whether the Single Judge erred in declining to determine in writ proceedings whether the appellant’s claimed land fell within the area acquired for the Arkavathi Layout.

2. Whether the Single Judge’s order warranted interference in the intra-court appeal.

The Court applied the principle that disputed questions of fact—particularly those requiring the identification, location and measurement of land and the assessment of competing documentary material—are not ordinarily appropriate for determination under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

No statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited as the basis for this principle in the judgment.

The dispute concerned whether the specific land claimed by the appellant lay inside or outside the acquired portion of Survey No. 42.

The Court noted that the court-directed survey report supported the respondents’ position, while the appellant disputed that report and relied on the acquisition notifications and other records.

Resolving the competing claims would require examining the documents and determining the land’s precise identity, extent and location.

The Single Judge had left those questions open for determination by the competent forum; the appellate Court found no error warranting interference.

The parties were left to pursue their respective rights and remedies in accordance with law before the competent forum.