Bitla Poshamma vs The State Of Telangana And 10 ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1332 Tel

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                       AND
              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                   WRIT APPEAL No.296 of 2020

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


       Heard Mr. B.Karthik Navayan, learned counsel for

the appellants and Mr. J.Suresh Babu, learned counsel for

respondents No.6 to 11.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated

05.03.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing

W.P.No.4970 of 2020 filed by appellant No.1 as the writ

petitioner.

3. Appellant No.1 had filed the related writ petition

seeking a direction to respondents No.1 to 5 to enter her

name in the revenue records in respect of agricultural land

admeasuring Ac.0.15 guntas in Survey No.626 of Yellandu

Village and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, on

the basis of preliminary decree dated 27.08.2013 passed by

the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem in

O.S.No.308 of 2012.

4. Learned Single Judge vide the order dated

05.03.2020 dismissed the writ petition by holding as

follows:

The only grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not entering her name in the revenue record in respect of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.15 guntas in Survey No.626 situated at Yellandu Village and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, though a preliminary decree was passed in her favour, vide O.S.No.308 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

3. According to the writ petitioner, several buildings are raised in the subject property and the Tahsildar also mutated the names of some third parties. There is encroachment on the subject property. The petitioner seeks mutation of her name basing on a preliminary decree and as on today, no rights are found to be assigned to the petitioner as final decree is yet to be passed. Until a final decree is passed, wherein the rights of the petitioner are yet to be crystallised, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted.

4. In view of same, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

5. Thus, view taken by the learned Single Judge was

that unless a final decree is passed, rights of appellant

No.1 cannot be said to have been crystallised. Therefore,

the relief sought for by appellant No.1 could not be

granted.

6. When we pointed out as to how this order can be

termed as erroneous, learned counsel for the appellants

has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in

Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Prasad Bubna v. Sita

Saran Bubna1, more particularly to paragraphs 17 and 27

to 30 thereof.

7. We have carefully perused the aforesaid decision of

the Supreme Court, including paragraphs 17 and 27 to 30

wherein Supreme Court emphasised the need for

continuation of proceedings from the stage of preliminary

decree to final decree and not insisting upon institution of

(2009) 9 SCC 689

separate suit for a final decree. Therefore, the said

decision is not on the point that on the strength of a

preliminary decree, name of appellant No.1 should be

entered in the revenue record.

8. On a query by the Court as to what is the present

stage of O.S.No.308 of 2012, learned counsel for the

appellants submits that the counsel at the trial Court is

not cooperating with the plaintiff.

9. We are unable to appreciate such a contention. If the

counsel is not cooperating with the litigant, litigant has a

right to opt for a fresh counsel and not to continue with the

uncooperative counsel.

10. On due consideration, we do not find any error or

infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. If

and when a final decree is passed, it would be open to

appellant No.2 to renew her prayer as made in the related

writ petition.

11. Subject to the above, writ appeal is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 20.03.2023 vs