ORDER : 1. This petition relates to the orders issued for execution of the decree dated 17.08.1998 granted by this Court while disposing of the second appeal in R.S.A.No. 1080/1995, and this appeal emanates from the proceedings in O.S.No. 39/1990 commenced by the respondent for declaration of title and possession of an area measuring 10 cents in Sy.No. 116/33A of Hemmame Village, Shanivarsanthe, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu, which according to the respondent is presently assigned as Municipal No. 4/126 by the Shanivarsanthe Municipality [the Subject property]. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 22.08.2015 and 19.12.2015 in Ex.Case.No. 57/1999 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Madikeri, Kodagu [presently, the Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Kodagu, Madikeri] [for short, 'the executing Court']. The proceeding in Ex.Case.No. 57/1999 is initiated to recover possession of the subject property in enforcement of the decree drawn by this Court in R.S.A.No. 1080/1995. This Court, before adverting to the circumstances in which the executing Court has passed the impugned orders dated 22.08.2015 and 19.12.2015 to issue delivery warrant, must record the circumstances leading to the commencement and the observations in R.S.A.No. 1080/1995 by this Court. 3. The respondent undisputedly is the owner of 10 cents in Sy.No. 116/33A of Hemmame Village, Shanivarsanthe, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu and the petitioner, who claim under Smt. Devamma [the original first petitioner], asserts title and possession to an extent of 30 cents in Sy.No. 116/2 of Hemmame Village, Shanivarsanthe, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu. The petitioner, apart from this extent, also asserts an extent of 30 cents in Sy.No. 64 of Chikkalathor Village. According to the petitioner, the subject property and these two parcels of 30 cents are adjacent lands, while the respondent contends that the subject property is very distinct and separate from the properties claimed by the petitioner. In fact, Sri. K. Raghavendra Rao, the learned counsel for the respondent, proposes to rely upon description of the boundaries as mentioned in the execution proceedings (1) to justify the identification of the subject property as distinct from the two parcels of 30 cents claimed by the petitioners. [(1) The respondent has commenced the execution proceedings describing the subject property as Sy.No. 166/33 but the respondent is permitted to correct the same to indicate that the 10 cents is in Sy.No. 116/33A.] 4. [(1) The respondent has commenced the execution proceedings describing the subject property as Sy.No. 166/33 but the respondent is permitted to correct the same to indicate that the 10 cents is in Sy.No. 116/33A.] 4. Smt. Devamma has contested the respondent's claim for declaration of title and possession of the subject property right through contending that the respondent, while asserting title to the subject property, is disturbing her possession of the 60 cents in Sy.No. 116/2 of Hemmame Village, Shanivarsanthe and Sy.No. 64 of Chikkalathor Village, both of which are in Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu. This Court, while disposing of the regular second appeal in R.S.A.No. 1080/1995 granting decree in favour of the respondent for the subject property, has observed thus: "8. The very fact that the defendant is not claiming the property must only to the benefit of the plaintiff and suit ought to have been decreed. I am not prepared to accept the contention that under the guise of getting a decree in respect of one land, with specific extent, specific survey number and specific village, the plaintiff will attempt to disturb the possession of the defendant in respect of some other land in some other village. Certainly the executing Court will not allow such things to happen. The courts are bound to execute the decree as it comes before them in respect of those properties covered under the decree. Therefore, in my opinion, the fear of the defendant is unfounded. So long as the defendant is not affected and so long as his property is away from the property of the plaintiff, there can be no impediment for granting a decree as prayed for by the plaintiff in the suit." The underlining is by this Court. 5. Smt. Devamma along with Sri. Nagaraj [the present petitioner] have persisted with filing a review petition in No. 320/2009 for review of the order dated 30.03.2001 in RSA No. 1080/1995 passed on a set of petitions and the application filed by the respondent. This review petition in No. 320/2009 is disposed of on 20.02.2015 recording that the observation as aforesaid in the order dated 17.08.1998 in RSA No. 1080/1995 would take care of their interest as against the claim that the respondent may try to recover possession of the constructed area in Sy.No. 116/2 of Hemmame Village, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu. 6. Though Ms. This review petition in No. 320/2009 is disposed of on 20.02.2015 recording that the observation as aforesaid in the order dated 17.08.1998 in RSA No. 1080/1995 would take care of their interest as against the claim that the respondent may try to recover possession of the constructed area in Sy.No. 116/2 of Hemmame Village, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu. 6. Though Ms. Sona Vakkund relies upon these circumstances and the suit inter se parties/their predecessors-in-title prior to the suit in O.S.No. No. 39/1990 to contend that the execution petition must be dismissed, this Court must observe that, with a concluded and final decree in favour of the respondent for declaration of title to the subject property and for recovery of possession, such decree must be enforced and there is a question of execution petition being dismissed without enforcing the decree. 7. The executing proceedings must culminate in delivery of possession of the subject property to the respondent, but it must be for the subject property and not for any portion of the land in Sy.No. 116/2 of Hemmame Village, Shanivarsanthe, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu. This position remains redoubtable with the observation in the orders in R.S.A. No. 1080/1995 and in the review petition in R.P. No. 320/2009. 8. The executing Court, after issuing the delivery warrant by the first impugned order dated 22.08.2015, has directed the Tahsildar to appoint a surveyor to identify the subject property and after certain exercise, the next impugned order dated 19.12.2015 is issued for delivery warrant. The petitioner's grievance as against the impugned order must necessarily be examined in the light of the procedure that is adopted by the executing Court. 9. The executing Court has directed the Tahsildar to appoint a Surveyor to assist the Court bailiff to deliver possession of the subject property, and the Court Bailiff has returned the warrant on multiple occasions. It would suffice for this Court to refer to the reason assigned by the Court Bailiff to return the warrant on 20.11.2015. The Court Bailiff has recorded that the surveyor has identified the 10 cents [which is the subject property] based on the boundaries, and because there is no Durasti proceedings, surveyor is not able to otherwise identify the 10 cents. The Court Bailiff has also recorded the Surveyor's request for a copy of the sketch that is available in the Court records. Thereafter, the Surveyor has filed a report on 11.12.2015. The Court Bailiff has also recorded the Surveyor's request for a copy of the sketch that is available in the Court records. Thereafter, the Surveyor has filed a report on 11.12.2015. The outcome of the two proceedings on 30.10.2015 and 11.12.2015 is as follows and the with following Endorsements: The Surveyor's relevant comments on these sketches This Court must observe that if the first sketch is prepared with the observation that it would be subject to scrutiny of the records available with the civil Court, the second sketch is prepared with reference to a photocopy of the Village Map and according to the boundaries as furnished by the respondent. 10. This Court must first conclude, in the backdrop of how the survey proceedings are finalized, that the executing Court, before issuance of the delivery warrant on 19.12.2015 based on the Surveyor's Report/s, should have extended an opportunity to the petitioner to bring forth on record the circumstances as to why such report should not be accepted; otherwise, a report prepared by the surveyor, based on his own examination of records, would be the reason for the delivery of possession in the execution proceedings notwithstanding the caveat that the respondent is entitled to recover possession of only the subject property. The caveat is in the observation of this Court in R.S.A. No. 1080/1995 and in R.P. No. 320/2009. Therefore, there is an undeniable procedural error. 11. This Court, on a conjoint reading of both the sketches and the reasons assigned, must also observe that extending an opportunity to the petitioner was inevitable, especially with nothing being brought on record to say whether any document from the Court records were furnished to the Surveyor for identifying the property after he had filed his report on 30.10.2015 saying that he can confirm location only after verifying the records from the Court. More crucially, it can be seen that the 10 cents in SY 116/33A is identified as an island within Sy.No. 116/2 on all sides, and this does not come across as a reasonable identification of the property, an exercise that will be inevitable in the circumstances of the case. 12. Therefore, the impugned orders for delivery warrant cannot be sustained and there must be directions to the executing Court to appoint a competent officer from the jurisdictional Department of Survey to demarcate the subject property and file a report. 12. Therefore, the impugned orders for delivery warrant cannot be sustained and there must be directions to the executing Court to appoint a competent officer from the jurisdictional Department of Survey to demarcate the subject property and file a report. The executing Court must also be directed to examine such report with due opportunity to the petitioner to the limited extent of demonstrating that the report identifies the subject property is in the land other than in Sy.No. 116/33A [as part of Sy.No. 116/33] of Hemmame Village, Shanivarsanthe, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu. Further, given the history of this litigation, the executing Court must be directed to dispose of the enquiry as now permitted within a time frame. Hence, the following: ORDER a) The petition is allowed in part, and the impugned orders dated 22.08.2015 and 19.12.2015 are quashed. The executing Court is directed to appoint the jurisdictional Assistant Director of Land Records (ADLR) or such other Officer as may be recommended by this office, to visit the subject property and identify the location of the property with the assistance of all records, including the village maps and other survey records and file a report within two [2] weeks from the date of the appointment. b) The executing Court must extend an opportunity to the respondent to demonstrate that the identification of the 10 cents by the aforesaid is in the land in Sy.No. 116/33A [as part of Sy.No. 116/33] of Hemmame Village, Shanivarsanthe, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu and ensure that delivery warrant is issued after such enquiry on or before 15.02.2024.