In this writ appeal, the court dismissed the prayer to interfere with orders allowing revenue entries based on a final decree for declaration of title held in favor of the decree holder against the appellants.
The writ appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.149 of 2010
JUDGMENT: (per Honourable the Acting Chief Justice B.Prakash Rao)
Heard Sri A.Ravinder Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and, at their request, the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal.
The appellants herein are the unsuccessful petitioners before the learned Single Judge, wherein they assailed the orders of respondent Nos.1 and 2 dated 27.09.2008 and 05.01.2008 respectively.
The undisputed facts in the appeal are as follows:
The fourth respondent obtained the decree in O.S.No.672 of 1983 on the file of Sub-ordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, against the appellants, for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction. The said decree had become final. Admittedly, no appeal had been filed against the said decree. It is only in pursuance of the said decree, the fourth respondent had filed an application before respondent No.3 for making entries in the revenue records, which was rejected through his order dated 26.06.2003. Thereupon, the appeal filed by respondent No.4 before respondent No.2 was dismissed on 26.06.2003. Thereafter, he filed a revision before respondent No.1, which was allowed. It is against this order, the Writ Petition is filed.
The learned Single Judge, while taking into account all the facts into consideration, did not favour the appellants mainly on the ground that once the decree had become final, it deserves to be respected and to be implemented by respondent
No.1 and, therefore, there is no question of interfering with the impugned order.
Learned Counsel for the appellants made several contentions regarding conversion of land into plots and other constructions made thereon.
Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the decree had become final, it does not in any way become ineffective merely because of conversion of land into plots and constructions made thereon by the purchasers. If any such action is against the decree, the same will be totally void and cannot be given effect to. We do not find any merit in this appeal.
The Writ Appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
B.PRAKASH RAO,ACJ
V.SURI APPA RAO,J
Date:24.11.2010 usd
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a final decree in a suit for declaration of title and injunction precludes the Revenue Court from making entries in favor of the decree holder.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Appellants
Respondent No.1
Respondent No.2
Respondent No.3
Respondent No.4
B PRAKASH RAO
V SURI APPA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
