The court emphasized the need to pursue legal remedies in pending civil proceedings before entertaining a Writ Petition under Article 226.

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief/s:-

“... to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore the assigned land admeasuring Ac.1-18 gts., in Sy.No.438 of Thungapahad Village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District to the Petitioner being wife of original Assignee late Bhaju (Hanma) under the provisions of Section 4(1)(b) TS Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 by duly considering representation of the Petitioner dated 23-09-2024 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, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the aims and objects of the said Act and pass such other order or orders …”

2. Heard Mr.Lokirev Preetam Reddy, learned 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 Hanuma was a landless poor person and he was assigned the land admeasuring Ac.1-18 gts., in Sy.No.438 of Thungapahad Village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 26.07.1958 and G.O.Ms.No.1324 dated 26.03.1959 by issuing the patta certificate No.C1/6192/1984 dated 28.09.1984; that some other persons were also granted the patta certificate of the assigned land; that the name of petitioner’s husband was also entered in the revenue records along with other persons and their names were shown in the Faisal Patti for the year 1987-88; that the name of petitioner’s husband was shown at serial No.5 in the said Faisal Patti for the year 1987-88; that from the said date, the petitioner’s husband was in possession of the said land and doing agriculture; that respondent Nos.5 to 11 forcibly grabbed the said land from the petitioner’s husband in the year 2001 without any authorization; that on 28.10.2006, the petitioner’s husband approached the Legal Services Committee, Miryalaguda seeking restoration of his possession over the above said land and initiating proceedings No.IW No.258 of 2006/LSA dated 28.10.2006; that the Legal Services Committee vide order dated 17.03.2007 closed the said Petition filed by the petitioner’s husband directing him to approach the civil Court. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner’s husband filed O.S.No.68 of 2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda (for short, “the trial Court”) against respondent Nos.5 to 11 seeking declaration that their possession over the said land was illegal; that vide judgment dated 19.09.2015 in O.S.No.68 of 2008 the said suit was dismissed; that aggrieved by the same, the petitioner’s husband filed A.S.No.14 of 2014 on the file of the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Miryalaguda (for short, “the appellate Court”) and the said Appeal was also dismissed vide judgment dated 06.09.2017 confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.68 of 2008; that the petitioner’s husband died on 04.05.1995; that the amended Section 4 of the Act of TS Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 empowers the District Collector and MRO to take unauthorized possession of the said land from respondent Nos.5 to 11 and restore the same to the petitioner, who is the wife of the