Karnataka High Court
Ashok vs Sayed Md. Khaliquazama on 13 January, 2026
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:199
WP No. 201970 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.201970 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
ASHOK S/O SIDDAPPA HAVINAL,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O AT POST: UKKALI VILLAGE,
BASAVANA-BAGEWADI TALUKA,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586203.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI YASHAS S. DIKSHIT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SAYED MD. KHALIQUAZAMA
S/O SAYED NABILAL BASHUBAN INAMDAR,
Digitally signed AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH 2. SAYDA S/O MUSTAF
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SAYED NABILAL BASHUBAN INAMDAR,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
3. SAYEDA TABASSUM
W/O SAYED ILIYAS PASHA BASHUBAN INAMDAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
4. SAYED ABDUR RAHAMAN
S/O SAYED ILIYAS PASHA BASHUBAN INAMDAR,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:199
WP No. 201970 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. SAYEDA SARADARAJANI
W/O SAYED ABDUL BARI HASAN
BASHUBAN INAMDAR,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
6. SAYED AHAMED QADRI
S/O SAYED ABDUL BARI HASAN BASHUBAN
INAMDAR,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R1-6 ARE R/O- NEAR BADIKAMAN,
J.M.ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586101.
HUSENSAB S/O MALIKSAB PATHAN
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S
7.
LALSAB S/O HUSENSAB PATHAN,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O- NEAR BUS STAND, AT POST: UKKALI VILLAGE,
BASAVANA-BAGEWADI TALUKA,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586203.
8. MALKAPPA
S/O APPANNA UPPAR,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
9. SANGAPPA
S/O SHANKREPPA UPPAR,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
10. MALLAPPA
S/O SHANKREPPA UPPAR,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
11. NINGAPPA
S/O SHANKREPPA UPPAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
PARAMAPPA S/O DUNDAPPA UPPAR,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS;
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:199
WP No. 201970 of 2025
HC-KAR
12. DUNDAPPA
S/O PARAMAPPA UPPAR,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
SHRISHAIL S/O DUNDAPPA UPPAR
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS;
13. NEELAWWA
W/O SHRISHAIL UPPAR,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
14. ANAND
S/O SHRISHAIL UPPAR,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
15. SHIVASHANKAR
S/O SIDDAPPA HAVINAL,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R8-15 ARE R/O- AT POST: UKKALI VILLAGE,
BASAVANA-BAGEWADI TALUKA,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586203.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI LIYAQAT FAREED, ADVOCATE R1 & R7;
V/O DATED 03.12.2025 NOTICE TO R3, R4 & R15 IS HELD
SUFFICIENT; R6 IS TREATED AS LR'S OF R5;
R2 & R8 TO R14 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE THE WRIT
OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE BAILIFF REPORT DATED
27.01.2025 SUBMITTED BEFORE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC BASAVAN BAGEWADI IN EX.NO.20/2022 WHICH IS AT
ANNEXURE-E IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. II) ISSUE A WRIT
OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE TRIAL COURT TO FOLLOW
THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW BY APPOINTING AN EXPERT
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:199
WP No. 201970 of 2025
HC-KAR
(COURT COMMISSIONER) FOR MEASURING THE ALLEGED
ENCROACHMENT AND VALUATION OF STANDING CROPS AND
OTHER MACHINERIES IN THE SUIT LAND.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by defendant No.8 in the original suit and judgment debtor No.8 in the execution petition.
2. For easy understanding, the parties shall be referred to as judgment debtor and decree holder.
3. The prayer sought in this petition by judgment debtor No.8 is as under:
"THEREFORE, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to;
(i) Issue the Writ of certiorari quashing the Bailiff report dated 27.01.2025 submitted before Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Basavan Bagewadi in -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:199 WP No. 201970 of 2025 HC-KAR Ex.No.20/2022 which is at Annexure-E, in the interest of justice.
(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Trial court to follow the due process of law by appointing an expert (Court Commissioner) for measuring the alleged encroachment and valuation of standing crops and other machineries in the suit land, in the interest of justice.
(iii) Pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."
4. Brief facts of the case are that:
The decree holders filed a suit as plaintiffs in O.S. No.578/2015 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge, Basavana Bagewadi against the judgment debtors/defendants therein seeking relief of recovery of possession. The suit came to be decreed vide judgment dated 22.09.2020 and the judgment debtors were directed to handover 12 guntas encroached area i.e., "KLCD" area which is part and parcel of lands bearing -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:199 WP No. 201970 of 2025 HC-KAR Sy.No.598/1+2+A+20-3B measuring 11 acres 09 guntas, Sy.No.598/1+2A+B2 measuring 3 acres, Sy.No.598/1+2+A+B1 measuring 3 acres, Sy.No.598/1+2A+B/3A measuring 6 acres. Pursuant to the judgment and decree, decree holders filed execution petition in E.P.No.20/2022 to execute the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge. In the execution petition, vide order dated 30.10.2024, a police protection was ordered for recovery of possession of the property from the judgment debtors and possession warrant was issued. Pursuant thereto, the bailiff vide order dated 27.01.2025 filed a report of compliance stating that possession of 12 guntas of land had been successfully recovered from the judgment debtors. In the bailiff's report, it is stated that there are standing crops and borewell along with equipment. The crops are valued at Rs.15,000/- and borewell along with equipment are valued at Rs.1,00,000/-. Accordingly, the bailiff submitted a report stating that the standing crops as well as borewell and -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:199 WP No. 201970 of 2025 HC-KAR equipment value is at Rs.1,15,000/- and that the decree holders are ready to make the payment of the same.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for judgment debtor No.8 that the bailiff has falsely filed a report as no possession was handed over or delivered and no notice of measurement of alleged encroached portion was given to judgment debtor No.8 with regard to the valuation of standing crops or equipment existing in the portion alleged to be encroached. Therefore, aggrieved by the report submitted by the bailiff dated 27.01.2025, the petitioner/judgment debtor No.8 is before this Court challenging the same on several grounds inter alia contending that the Executing Court was unjustified in accepting the report of the bailiff and that neither in the original suit nor in the execution proceedings, the Court Commissioner was appointed to ascertain actual encroachment of the land and that there is no report of the Assistant Director of Land Records (ADLR) submitted before the Court with regard to measurement of the land along -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:199 WP No. 201970 of 2025 HC-KAR with the report. Therefore, it is contented that when there is no measurement, it would have been impossible for the decree holders or the bailiff to ascertain what is the actual encroachment. It is also contented that the valuation so put forth by the bailiff with regard to the standing crops and the borewell of Rs.1,15,000/- is not justified. Accordingly, judgment debtor No.8 seeks to set aside the order and allow this petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 7/decree holder Nos.1 and 7 vehemently contends that the plea of non-identification of the encroached property was not taken up in the original suit and despite judgment debtor No.8 appearing before the Trial Court, he did not choose to file a statement or contest the case on merits. After the decree, the plaintiffs/decree holders filed execution petition. Even in the execution proceedings, the judgment debtors have neither appeared nor filed any objections to the execution petition or to the application Nos.I and II filed by the -9- NC: 2026:KHC-K:199 WP No. 201970 of 2025 HC-KAR decree holders for issuance of warrant of delivery of possession of suit property with the assistance of the Taluka Surveyor and with the aid of police constables and woman police constable of Managuli Police Station. Therefore, when the judgment debtors have not contested the suit diligently, suit having been decreed, execution petition came to be filed, which is also not objected to or seriously contested by judgment debtor No.8 and in spite of having filed I.A. Nos.I and II seeking delivery of possession with the assistance of Taluka Surveyor and with the aid of the police constables, objections to the said applications was also not filed by the judgment debtors, there is nothing on record for the judgment debtors objecting to anything right from filing the suit till the report of the bailiff which has gone uncontested.
7. He further contends that the judgment debtors have not even bothered to file objections to the bailiff's report and judgment debtor No.8 approached this Court, which is primarily premature and belated, if it is taken from
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:199 WP No. 201970 of 2025 HC-KAR the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, he contends that there is no illegality or arbitrariness or perversity in the order passed by the Executing Court and in the report of the bailiff. Now what is questioned by judgment debtor No.8 is with regard to the bailiff report dated 27.01.2025. Therefore, he contends that the order of the Executing Court on application Nos.I and II stands intact without being disturbed and apparently there is no challenge to the same as well. Under these circumstances, he seeks dismissal of this petition.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for judgment debtor No.8 and decree holder Nos.1 and 7.
9. There is no dispute to the fact that the suit came to be decreed by way of a judgment and decree dated 22.09.2020. In the said judgment and decree, the trial Court has directed the defendants to hand over 12 guntas encroached area i.e., "KLCD", which is a part and parcel of the suit schedule property. The encroached portion has been specifically mentioned in the judgment
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:199 WP No. 201970 of 2025 HC-KAR itself. Pursuant thereto, an execution petition came to be filed by the decree holders, the successful plaintiffs, which came to be filed on 04.03.2022. Despite filing Vakalath on 21.06.2022, judgment debtor No.8 has not filed any objections to the execution petition or taken any plea with regard to there being no identification of the encroached portion of the property which is sought to be executed. On 30.10.2024, decree holders filed two applications for issuance of warrant of delivery of possession of suit schedule property with the assistance of Taluka Surveyor and for providing the police aid/protection along with woman constable of Managuli police station. Even to this application though the judgment debtors were present before the Executing Court through their counsel and despite sufficient opportunities having been granted, objections were not filed and accordingly objections to I.A.Nos.I and II were taken as not filed. Thereafter, the said applications came to be allowed. Subsequent thereto the possession warrant was re-issued to be carried out on
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:199 WP No. 201970 of 2025 HC-KAR or before 31.12.2024 and to submit a report. Thereafter, the bailiff has submitted a report. Despite the submission of report by the bailiff and the matter being posted before the Executing Court, the objections are not filed by the judgment debtors to the said report of the bailiff, even till date. Judgment debtor No.8 has approached this Court without even filing objections to the said report of the bailiff and by way of an interim order granted by this Court on 03.12.2025, is enjoying the interim order and has not bothered to appear before the Executing Court to file any objections to the bailiff report or even to the applications or raise his little finger with regard to the identification of the property, which has now been taken up for the first time in this writ petition.
10. The procedure contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure is pursuant to the judgment and decree. It is the liberty and discretion of the successful party, in the present case, the plaintiffs, to file the execution petition to execute the judgment and decree and to enjoy the fruits of
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:199 WP No. 201970 of 2025 HC-KAR the judgment and decree. In the execution petition, apparently, though the judgment debtors appeared way back on 21.06.2022, they have not bothered to file their objections to the execution petition and to the applications filed by the decree holders to take delivery of possession of the suit property, including assistance of the surveyor and the police aid and also to the bailiff report. Under the circumstances, it is necessary for this Court to extract Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under:
"47. Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree.-
(1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.
(2) [***] omitted by Act 104 of 1976.
(3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:199 WP No. 201970 of 2025 HC-KAR question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court.
[Explanation I.--For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are parties to the suit.
Explanation II.--(a) For the purposes of this section, a purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree is passed; and
(b) All questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to such purchaser or his representative shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of this section.]"
11. It is for the Executing Court to consider any objections and all questions arising between the parties in the execution proceedings arising out of the suit which is now put forward to execution, relating to the execution and discharge or satisfaction of the decree. Therefore, when the petitioner/judgment debtor No.8 has not bothered to appear before the Executing Court to file objections to the
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:199 WP No. 201970 of 2025 HC-KAR main petition or to the applications filed, he will not have any right to approach this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order passed by the Court. In fact, judgment debtor No.8 is not even questioning any order of the Court in this petition. What is questioned is a report submitted by the bailiff dated 27.01.2025 before the Executing Court. I do not find any illegality or perversity or procedural error committed by the Executing Court calling for interference in this petition. If judgment debtor No.8 is interested in raising any objection with regard to any identification of the encroached portion, he is at liberty to do so before the Executing Court and the Executing Court shall consider if any objection is raised or filed to the report of the bailiff. Neither the clock be set backwards nor the cart be put in front of the horse. Therefore, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere in the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is limited to the perversity or
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:199 WP No. 201970 of 2025 HC-KAR illegality committed by the Executing Court or the trial Court in the present case, the Executing Court.
12. Learned counsel for judgment debtor No.8 has relied upon the following judgments;
(i) Pratibha Singh and another Vs. Shanti Devi Prasad and another [AIR 2003 SC 643];
(ii) Mary Pushpam Vs. Telvi Curusumary & Ors.
[2024 INSC 8]
(iii) Madhukar Timbak Gore Vs. Vasant Ramkrishna Kolhatkar [AIR 1983 BOMBAY 277] The above said judgments are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. In the case of Pratibha Singh, it is clearly stated by the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph No.17 that alternatively, the exact description of the decretal property may be ascertained by the Executing Court as a question relating to execution,
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:199 WP No. 201970 of 2025 HC-KAR discharge or satisfaction of decree within the meaning of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
13. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE RSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15 CT:SI