Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for factual disputes regarding alleged deviations from sanctioned building plans.

The Appellants (original petitioners), owners of sub-plot No. 8 in Final Plot No. 33, Town Planning Scheme No. 5 (Umara North), Surat, filed a writ petition alleging that the private respondents (Respondents No. 3 and 4) deviated from sanctioned plans by constructing on the margin land between sub-plots 8 and 9.

They sought a writ of mandamus for demolition and cancellation of development permissions.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition based on a statement from the Surat Municipal Corporation's advocate that an inspection revealed the construction was at the plinth level, complied with sanctioned plans, and the margin area remained open.

The Appellants filed this Intra-court appeal with a delay of 293 days.

1. Whether the delay of 293 days in filing the intra-court appeal ought to be condoned.

2. Whether factual disputes regarding construction deviations and encroachments on margin land can be adjudicated under the writ jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Court applied the principle that factual disputes requiring an inquiry into the nature of construction and physical measurements are "purely factual in nature" and generally fall outside the scope of adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Regarding the delay, the Court exercised its discretionary power to condone the delay in the interest of justice to address the underlying dispute's nature.

The Division Bench observed that the primary grievance of the Appellants—whether Respondents No. 3 and 4 breached the sanctioned plan or encroached on the margin land—involved a technical and factual determination.

While the Single Judge had relied on the oral statement of the Corporation’s counsel regarding a site visit, the Bench held that the High Court is not the appropriate forum for such factual inquiries.

To ensure the "controversy reaches its logical end," the Court determined that instead of dismissing the claim outright, the Appellants should be directed back to the competent municipal authority, which possesses the administrative machinery to conduct site inspections and hear both parties.

It held that the High Court cannot adjudicate the factual merits of the construction dispute.

The Court directed the Appellants to submit a fresh representation to the Surat Municipal Corporation within two weeks. The Corporation is ordered to provide a hearing to all parties, including Respondents No. 3 and 4, and pass a reasoned, speaking order strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by previous observations made by the Single Judge.