JUDGMENT : 1. Writ appeal Nos.100289-292/2018 have been filed by Belagavi City Corporation whereas C.C.C.Nos.100328-331/2017 have been filed by the writ petitioners in W.P.No.107177 of 2015 and connected writ petitions, seeking implementation of the directions issued by the Learned Single Judge on 16.03.2017. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant Corporation submits that the private respondents herein were issued ‘Hakkupatra’ in respect of certain plots. That they are in possession of the said plots as per ‘Hakkupatra’ and that having regard to issuance of ‘Hakkupatra’ which contained the measurement of the plots as well as the boundaries to the said plots, the private respondents are deemed to be in possession of their respective plots. Such being the case, the private respondents could not have sought a direction against the Corporation to demarcate the plots, identify the same and once again hand-over the possession of the said plots to the private respondents, who were the petitioners in the writ petitions. He submits that when the possession of the plots has already been handed-over to the private respondents herein, it is for them to take further steps for protecting their possession in accordance with law and that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge to the appellant-Corporation to once again measure the plots with the Assistant Director of Land Records (hereinafter referred to as ‘ADLR’ for the sake of brevity) and to hand-over the possession of the said plots does not arise. He, submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and that the contempt proceedings filed against the appellant-Corporation by the writ petitioners may be dropped. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondents/writ petitioners/complainants contended that what was assailed in the writ petition was Annexure ‘H’ issued by the Corporation which is a letter dated 25.06.2013 as well as endorsement dated 17.07.2014 issued by the ADLR, Annexure ‘L’. It is in that context, a direction has been issued by the learned Single Judge directing the Corporation to secure the assistance of ADLR for the purpose of identifying and measuring the plots in respect of which ‘Hakkupatra’ have been issued to the private respondents herein, so that they could take further steps for putting up constructions, etc. It is in that context, a direction has been issued by the learned Single Judge directing the Corporation to secure the assistance of ADLR for the purpose of identifying and measuring the plots in respect of which ‘Hakkupatra’ have been issued to the private respondents herein, so that they could take further steps for putting up constructions, etc. That the Learned Single Judge has rightly directed the Corporation as well as the ADLR to take appropriate steps so that possession of the private respondents herein is identified and recognized in respect of the plots which have been handed-over to them by the Corporation. That since the order passed and directions issued by the Learned Single Judge are just and proper and the same have not been complied with by the appellant-Corporation, the writ petitioners have preferred contempt petitions for willful disobedience of the directions of the Learned Single Judge and that this Court may initiate action against the Officers of the Corporation. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that appropriate orders may be made in the writ appeals and the contempt petitions. 5. By way of reply, learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation submitted that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge are wholly unnecessary having regard to the fact that the two out of four petitioners had even filed original suits against the third parties. The said suits were seeking relief of permanent injunction and the said suits have been decreed. This itself makes it amply clear that the possession of the respective plots are with the petitioners and there is nothing further to be done by the Corporation in the matter. He, therefore, reiterated his submission and sought for setting aside of the order impugned in these appeals. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, we find that the controversy in these appeals is in a very narrow compass. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioners have been handed over ‘Hakkupatra’ in respect of the respective plots with specific measurements and boundaries. The writ petitioners are in possession of their respective plots. It may be that there are some third parties who have encroached upon the said plots, in respect of which, some of the writ petitioners have approached the civil court by filing a suit seeking relief of permanent injunction which has also been decreed. The writ petitioners are in possession of their respective plots. It may be that there are some third parties who have encroached upon the said plots, in respect of which, some of the writ petitioners have approached the civil court by filing a suit seeking relief of permanent injunction which has also been decreed. 7. Be that as it may, it appears that the plots have been handed-over to the writ petitioners who are all members of an erstwhile House Building Co-operative Societies. Even though the said Society may not be in existence, it is for the recipients of the ‘Hakkupatra’ / the plot holders, to take steps for protection of their possession and enjoy their respective plots. As is evident, in respect of the third party interference, two of the writ petitioners have already filed suits and have a decree in their favour. That itself establishes that they are in possession of their respective plots. In order to ensure that the possession of the plots are handed over by ‘Hakkupatra’ to the writ petitioners are intact and continued, it is for the writ petitioners to take steps by getting C.T.S. number in respect of the said plots. Instead of doing the same, the writ petitioners sought for re-survey of the plots so as to identify and handover the possession of the same to them by the Corporation. 8. The said exercise is wholly unnecessary in our view, as the ‘Hakkupatra’ themselves clearly indicate the boundaries to the plots handed over to the writ petitioners as well as the measurements. It is for them to protect the said boundaries of the plots as per the measurement stated in that ‘Hakkupatra’ and by seeking the CTS numbers in respect of the said plots. 9. In the circumstances, we find that Learned Single Judge was not right in issuing directions to the appellant-Corporation to take assistance of the ADLR to once again measure the plots, identify the same and to hand-over the possession of the same to the writ petitioners. 10. In the circumstances, the order of the Learned Single Judge is set aside. Liberty is reserved to the writ petitioners to take all steps necessary for getting CTS numbers in respect of the plots handed-over to the writ petitioners by the Corporation, which are in their possession, in accordance with law. 10. In the circumstances, the order of the Learned Single Judge is set aside. Liberty is reserved to the writ petitioners to take all steps necessary for getting CTS numbers in respect of the plots handed-over to the writ petitioners by the Corporation, which are in their possession, in accordance with law. Writ Appeals are allowed and disposed off in the aforesaid terms. Consequently, I.A.No.3 of 2018 also stands disposed off. 11. In view of the judgment passed in the writ appeals, contempt proceedings are dropped.