TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, ILKAL v. BASAVARAJ GURULINGAPPA SAJJAN

TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, ILKAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER, NOW CITY MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, ILKAL, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, SRI. SRINIVAS GOVINDRAO JADAV, AGE. 43 YEARS, CMC, ILKAL-587125, BAGALKOT DIST. (BY SRI. SURESH S.SHETTEMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND:

1. BASAVARAJ GURULINGAPPA SAJJAN, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND PRIVATE TRADE, R/O. ILKAL-587125, BAGALKOT DIST.

2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUKA PANCHAYAT OFFICER, HUNGUND-587125, BAGALKOT DIST.

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT-587125, REPRESENTING STATE OF KARNATAKA. SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY S.HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R3; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17/03/2025 ON IA PASSED AS PER ANNEXURE-J IN EXECUTION PETITION NO.09/2009 BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT HUNGUND, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,. - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:79 WP No. 107706 of 2025 HC-KAR THIS WRIT FOR HEARING- INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: PETITION, COMING ON CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER

1. The present writ petition is filed by the judgment debtor aggrieved by an order passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Hungund, dated 17.03.2025 in E.P. No. 9/2009 on a interim application filed u/S 151 of CPC.

2. The petitioner is the judgment debtor and the respondent is the decree holder. He had filed O.S. No. 174/2006 seeking declaration, injunction and also recovery of possession in respect of 5 acres 11 guntas in R.S. No. 105/1/3 of Ilkal Village, Hungund Taluk. The said suit came to be decreed and the Trial Court observed that the petitioner herein, who is defendant No.1, has encroached upon the land of the plaintiff to the extent of 1 acre 19 guntas. The petitioner herein has not questioned the said judgment and decree and respondent / decree holder has filed an execution petition in the year 2009. The order impugned is the direction issued to the judgment debtor to hand over possession of the suit property to the extent of 1 acre 19 - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:79 WP No. 107706 of 2025 HC-KAR guntas situated in R.S. No. 105/1/3 as per the decree passed in O.S. No. 174/2002 as shown in Ex.P.5-P.T. Sheet by the Surveyor and the office is also directed to appoint Special Bailiff to hand over vacant possession of the suit property. If the judgment debtor causes obstruction, the Special Bailiff is directed to take the Police assistance of Ilkal Town Police. The PSI, Ilkal Town Police Station is directed to give assistance to the Special Bailiff to execute the warrant issued to him and if the Police does not give the assistance, it shall be viewed seriously.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the judgment debtor No.1 submits that this order is not executable. It is submitted that the Municipality, i.e., the petitioner / judgment debtor, is in possession of only one acre and the decree holder himself is in possession of land to an extent of 18 guntas and even if they want to give alternative land, the same is in possession of allottees who were allotted the land much before 2000. It is submitted that the Trial Court ought to have considered all these aspects.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that even though he had a decree in his favour, from 2006 to - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:79 WP No. 107706 of 2025 HC-KAR 2026 he has not been able to execute the decree. It is submitted that, in fact during the pendency of this writ petition they have filed a memo before the Court stating that they would hand over possession of the available land to the decree holder within six months. It is submitted that judgment debtor has filed a memo and produced a list of documents and prayed for 12 months time and the Trial Court granted six months time to hand over possession of the suit property to the decree holder. It is submitted that when the decree holder has filed an application to reopen the execution petition, at that time the present writ petition is filed.

5. Having heard the learned counsels on either sides, perused the material on record. When the decree has attained finality, it is not open for the judgment debtor to agitate all these issues and it is the duty to implement the judgment and decree. E.P. No. 9/2009 is pending till now before the Executing Court even after directing the judgment debtor to hand over possession of the land after granting six months time. Now it is not open to say that decree cannot be executed. It appears that on one or the other pretext, the petitioner wants to delay - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:79 WP No. 107706 of 2025 HC-KAR handing over possession. The parties rights which were crystallized way back in the year 2006 still he is not able to enjoy the fruits of the decree and it is an unfortunate state of affairs. This conduct cannot be permitted. This Court do not find any merits in the writ petition and accordingly this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following: ORDER (i) Considering the suit is decreed way back in the year 2006, the petitioner-Municipality shall hand over possession of the land within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of. (iii) All pending IAs. In the petition shall stand closed. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI BVV CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39