The executing court cannot go beyond the decree and must ensure that the warrant is reissued and the delivery is made. Once the delivery is made and the portion has been demarcated, it is not open to the judgment debtor to claim that the delivery is bad.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed by the petitioner - Decree Holder in execution petition No. 50/96 questioning the order of the Executing court, rejecting the report of delivery of possession of execution of the schedule property.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are: The Petitioner is the absolute owner of the land Sy. No 36 measuring 4 acres 1 gunta of Sonnappanahally village, Jala Hobli, previously Devanahally Taluk, now Bangalore north Taluk, which was a religious charitable inarn land attached to the deity of Anjaneya Swamy Temple of Sonnappanahally Village. The Land Tribunal Devanahally granted occupancy right in favour of the petitioner by the order dated 22. 5. 1982. The respondent judgment-debtor has encroached 27 guntas out of 4 acres 1 gunta in Sy. No 36. At the instance of the petitioner, the ADLR doddaballapur measured the land Sy. No. 36. While fixing the boundaries, it is found that the judgment debtor has encroached upon 27 guntas of land and the ADLR also demarcated the portion of the encroached area following the survey conducted on 7. 5. 1985. The entire area in Sy No. 36 is within the boundary.

( 3 ) THE petitioner contended that he filed suit in O. S 186/85, subsequently renumbered as O. S. 358/89. The said suit came to be decreed on 31. 1. 1996. In view of the said decree, the respondent was directed to deliver vacant possession of 27 guntas in Sy. No. 36. But. the respondent has failed to comply with the decree. Therefore, the petitioner has filed Execution Petition No. 50/96. Delivery warrant was issued to the respondent on 5. 8. 1996. The bailiff of the Court below went to the spot along with the petitioner to execute the warrant and he finds difficulty to execute the warrant in view of the obstruction caused by the respondent. Ultimately, the bailiff filed the report, reporting about the obstruction caused by the respondent as per Ex. C. 5-A and in view of the said report one suryakantha was examined as CW. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner filed i. A. IV under Section 151 and sought for police help. The Court below vide order dated 15. 11. 1996 allowed the application and ordered for police help and adjourned the matter to 30. 11. 1996. Again the delivery warrant was issued and allotted to one H. C. Venkataramaiah has been examined as CW. 1. The said Bailiff after securing the police help went to the spot and found two security personnel belonging to the judgment debtor and the contents of the delivery warrant was made known to them. The respondents voluntarily removed the two sheds from the schedule property and have surrendered the vacant possession to the petitioner. After the petitioner got possession of the Schedule property, he removed the existing cement poles and wiring put by the respondent and erected a fresh fencing with stone slabs. Thus, the delivery warrant was executed on 29. 11. 1996.

( 4 ) IT is further contended that on the application filed by the respondent under Section 47, the executing Court examined C. Ws 1 to 3 in support of the application and the respondent examined one witness as DW. 1, and the documents Exs. C1 to C5 and Exs. P. 1 to P. 5 got marked. The Executing Court found that there is no proper demarcation and identification of the land measuring 27 guntas while executing the delivery warrant and the report filed by the Bailiff regarding execution of delivery warrant was rejected by the order dated 10. 9. 1997. It is against the above order, the present petition has been filed.

( 5 ) IT is contended that the executing Court has failed to consider the dictum in 1992 (11) Civil law Journal, 725 and A. I. R 1993 Calcutta 128. The evidence of DW. 1 who is a responsible officer of the respondent which is extracted below has not been properly considered. "i cannot say without referring the affidavit whether in the affidavit sworn to in support of I. A. 7, whether We claim 1 acre of land in sy. No 36. Our department has not secured only documents from survey De