The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. 2 J The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat Building, Saifabad, Hyderabad. The District Collector, Nalgonda at Nalgonda. The Revenue Divisional Officer, IMiryalaguda fvlandal, Nalgonda District. ,..PETITIONER The Tahasildar, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District. 4 5. Dhanavath Lakpathi, S/o. Laichand, Age.45 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Samiya Thanda, Hio. Thungapahad Village, ttrliryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District.

6. Dhanavath Deepla, S/o. Lalchand, Age. 42 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Samiya Thanda, H/o. Thungapahad Village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District.

7. Dhanavath Pandya, S/o. Lalchand, Age. 40 years, Occ. Agriculture, FVo. Samiya Thanda, H/o. Thungapahad Village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District. B. Dhanavath Rupla, S/o. Lalchand, Age.39 years, Occ. Agriculture, Fl/o. Samiya Thanda, H/o. Thungapahad Village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District.

9. Dhanavath Thavu, S/o. Lalchand, Age. 37 years, Occ. Agriculture, Fl/o. Samiya Thanda, H/o. Thungapahad Village, Miryalaguda [Vandal, Nalgonda District.

10. Dhanavath Laxma, S/o. Lalchand, Age. 35 years, 0cc. Agriculture, Rl/o. Samiya Thanda, H/o. Thungapahad Village, lvliryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District. 1 1. Dhanavath Gorka, S/o. Lalchand, Age. 32 years, Occ. Agriculture, RJo. Samiya Thanda, H/o. Thungapahad Village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District. ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to writ of mandamus to directing the respondents to restore the assigned land admeasuring Ac.1-'l B gts., in Sy. No. 438 of Thungapahad Village, Miryalaguda [\/andal, Nalgonda District to the Petitioner being wife of original Assignee late Bhaju (Hanma) under the provisions of Section 4(1Xb) TS Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 by duly consider ng representation of the Petitioner daled 2310912024 and issue Pattedar Passbooks and Title Deed by declaring the action of the Respondent authorities in not restoring the resumed the land in favour of the Petitioner under Section 4(ii) the TS Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 by declaring the in action of the Respondent authorities in this regard is violative of Article 14,2'l and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and also contrary to the aims and objects of the said Act. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 23-09-2024 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI LOKIREV PREETHAM REt)DY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: SMT. R. SNEHITHA, AGP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 11:--- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITIoN No.25885 OF 2O?5 ORDER: This \Arrit Petition is filed under Articl e 226 oi the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief/s:- ".-. to issuc rvrit of mandamus directing the rcspondcnls !o restore the assigned land adraeasuring Ac.1-18 gts.. in S,v.No 438 of Thungapahad Village, Mirl alaguda Mandal, Nalgonda Disrrict to the Petitioner being rvife of original Assignec late Bhaju (Hanmal !Lnde. rhe provisions of Section 4(l){b} TS Assigned Land (Prohibition of Trarlsfcrsl Act, 1977 b1' dull considcring represcntation of the Peritioner dated 2:l 0q 202.1 and issue Patlcdar Passbooks and Titlc Deed by declarrng thc action of thc Respondent authorities in not rcsto.ing thc rcsumod thc land in lavour of the Petitioner under Section 4(ii) the TS Assigncd Lands {Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 by declaring the in action of the Respondent autho.ities in this regard is violative of Article t.+, 2I and 3O0 A ol the Constitution o[ India and also contrary to the aims and objects of thc said Act and pass such othe. ordc. or orders..."

2. Heard Mr.Lokirev Preetam Reddl', Iearned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.R.Snehitha, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's husband namely Late Dhanavath Haluma \t'as a landless poor person and he was assigned the land admeasuring Ac.1-18 gts., ln Sy.No.43B of Thungapahad Village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District under the pror.isions ol G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 26.O7.1958 and G.O.Ms.No.1324 dated 26.O3.1959 by issuing the patta certiflcate .- o No.C11619211984 dated 28.09.1984; thar some othcr persons u'ere also granted the patta certificale of the assigned land; thzrt the nar-.e e of petitioner's husbalci ri as also entered in the rr:ver-rue records ai..lng u'ith other persons and their narnes s ere shown in the Faisa,l Patti for the year 1987 BB; that the name of petitioner's husband u'as shou,n at serial No.5 in the said F aisal Patti for the year 19.e7-BB; that from the said date, the petitioner's husband u'as jn possession of the sairl lancl and doing agriculture; that res1,'ondent Nos.5 to 1l forcibl-r. grabbed the said land from the petitioner's husband in the year 2OO 1 ',vithout any anthorization; that on

28.1O .2006, the petitioner's husband approached the Legal Services Committee, Miryalaguda seeking rr:storation of his possession orrer the above said land and initiating proceedings No.lW No.258 of 2006/LSA dated 28.1O.2O(tt1; that the Legal Sen'iccs Committee vide order dated 17.03.2007 closed the said Pctition filed by the petitioner's husband directing him to approzrch tl-re civil Court. Pursuant thercto, the petitioner's husband liled O.S.No.68 of 2008 on the fi e of the learned Sen icr Civil Judge, Miryalaguda (for short, "rhe trial Court") against rcspondent Nos.5 to 11 seeking declaration that their \) possession over the said land u'as illegal; thzrt vide judgment dated 19.09.20 15 in O.S.No.68 ol 2008 the said suit '"r'as dismissed; that aggrieved by the same, the petitioner's husbanrr filed A.S.No. 14 of 2O14 on the file ol the learned Vllr Aclditionai District Judge, Miryalaguda (for short, "the appellate Court") and the said Appeal u,as also dismissed vide judgment dated 06.O9.2017 confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.6B ol 20OB; that the petitioner's husband died on 04.05.1995; that the amended Section 4 of the Act of TS Assigned Lar-rd (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 7977 empo\\:ers the Districl Collector and MRO to take unauthorized possession ol the said land from respondent Nos.5 to i 1 ald restore the same to the petitioner, r,vho is the wife ol the original assignee; that presentl,v, the land is in possession of the Government and the petitioner made representations to thc District Collector, RDO and Tahasildar on Ol.l2.2Ol7, 22.O3.2018, 19.O9.2018,

09.02.2024, 09.O7.2024 and finaliv on 23.09.2024 to restore the possession of the said land; that the representation of the petitioner dated 23.09.2024 was pending consideration before the respondent authorities; that as per the report of the .- 4 Tahsildar dated 15.03.2024, S.A.No.44B of 2023 is pending consiclerrrtion belore the concerned Court: that no notice,.r'as served Lrpon the petitioner r,r'ith regard to the s,lme; that upon verificatjon, ir is lounci tha. ti:e Second Appeal is iiled u,ith enormolrs clelal' ol (2 12O) days ald it does nct come in the u'av of r:onsidering the representation submitted b], the pctitioncr'. ,\ggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present Writ Pctil ion +. Le;rrned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite, the 1e'gal € ntitlement of the petitioner, the representation made b-r' tlre pctitioner on 23.O9 .2024 was not considered. Therelilrr', tre seeks to pass appropriate orders

5. Leirrned Assistant Government Pleade: for Revenue submits that the tria-l Court as r'vell as the appellate Court rightl_r' and appropriately directed the respondent ar,rthorities to resurn e the land in question. He states that i,vhen the subject rnatter is pending before the competent civil Court, passing orriers on the representation dated 23.09 .2021 is untenablr-'. Iherefore, he seeks to dismiss the V/rit Petition _---.----.--- 5

6. Ha.,'ing rega,rd to the submissions ol both the learned counsel and on perusal of thc material available on record, this Court is ol the opinion that the petitioner has got everv- oplrorl un;t" to agitate his case in S.A.No.44B ol 2023 pending before the concerned Court. Therefore. this Court does not see an,v reason or ground to entertain this Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7 . Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if an1', shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY' SD/- NIOHD. ISNTAII, EPUTY REGISTRA ECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRt. LOKTREV PREETHAIU REDDY Advocate [OpUCl 2. Two CCs to Gp FoR ASSTGNMENT .Higtia;urt for ine Stlte o"fietangana 3. Two CD Copies I PvL 4b HIGH COURT DATED:1011012025 ORDER WP.No.25885 of 2025 tt'i i\!s z7 DL:. S PAl C'i rr'! DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 6 1 16 r)n I