ORDER : Heard Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri L.Ravinder, learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Revenue and Sri Lingala Sudheer, learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 31.03.2021 in Appeal No.R10R59(Asif)/5/2017 passed by the 2nd respondent. 3. The petitioners, wife and husband respectively, are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the premises bearing No.13-2-319 admeasuring 173 sq.yards situated at Dhulpet, Aramghar, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the subject house’) on the ground that they are in long standing possession over the subject land which is government land. 4. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.58 and 59, dated 30.12.2014 for regularization and transfer of rights on lands encroachments on unobjectionable government land and surplus land under urban land ceiling to the people who are in possession on payment basis. In the said G.O., certain terms and conditions were imposed for regularization. The petitioners made an application to the 4th respondent for regularization of their land under the said G.O. 4th respondent vide endorsement dated 06.07.2015 held that the petitioners are in possession of the land above 150sq.yards which is excess to the extent permitted under the aforesaid G.O. and converted their application filed under G.O.Ms.No.59. 4th respondent further held that their land would be regularized subject to payment of requisite amount as stipulated including other conditions mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.59, dated 30.12.2014. 5. Petitioners contend that they were within the ambit of G.O.Ms.No.59 and they paid total amount of Rs 2,59,000/- on different dates towards regularization fee. While the matter was under consideration of 4th respondent, 5th respondent and other family members raised objections before the 4th respondent not to regularize the subject land. 4th respondent put all the parties who objected for regularization including the petitioners herein on notice and upon conducting an enquiry, addressed a letter dated 02.11.2016 to the 3rd respondent stating that the petitioners were residing in the said premises as on the date of G.O.Ms.No.59. 6. Aggrieved by the said letter dated 02.11.2016, 5th respondent filed an application before the 3rd respondent. Vide order dated 28.02.2017 3rd respondent allowed the same. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners herein filed appeal before 2nd respondent. Vide order dated 13.08.2017, 2nd respondent disposed of the said appeal and directed the petitioners to approach appropriate forum to resolve the issue. Vide order dated 28.02.2017 3rd respondent allowed the same. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners herein filed appeal before 2nd respondent. Vide order dated 13.08.2017, 2nd respondent disposed of the said appeal and directed the petitioners to approach appropriate forum to resolve the issue. Therefore, the petitioners filed an application before the Director, Land Administration (Appeals), Vide order dated 12.02.2018, the Director, Land Administration (Appeals), remanded the matter back to the 2nd respondent for fresh enquiry. Since then, the Appeal No.R10R59(Asif)/5/2017 is pending before the 2nd respondent. 7. Aggrieved by the inaction of the 2nd respondent, the petitioners filed W.P.No.18520 of 2020 and during the pendency of the said writ petition, vide order dated 31.03.2021, the 2nd respondent rejected the petitioners’ application and allowed the counter claim filed by the 5th respondent without even issuing the notice and without affording an opportunity. Therefore the impugned order dated 31.03.2021 passed by 2nd respondent is illegal since he failed to consider the endorsement dated 06.07.2015 of the 4th respondent stating that the petitioners are in possession of the subject house and paid requisite fee for regularization. The petitioners herein have complied with the terms and conditions in G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 30.12.2014. The 2nd respondent without issuing any notice and affording an opportunity passed the impugned order dated 31.03.2021. 8. 5th respondent filed counter opposing the claim of the petitioners in the present writ petition, contending that the subject property is a joint family property allotted to her husband P.Janardhan and on his request the same was allotted to his younger brother P.Vasudev Rao. After said P.Vasudev Rao, left the property about 50 years back, she and her children are jointly residing in the subject house. 9. 5th respondent contended that the petitioners have created the documents to grab the property illegally. There is no direction to the petitioners by the 4th respondent for payment of fee for regularization. Without her consent, the petitioners with mal intent deposited the fee for regularization and when she came to know, she objected the same. The 4th respondent passed an order stating that all the family members are residing in the premises and it was agreed by the sisters to share the subject land among three brothers equally as the 2nd petitioner is not looking after his mother. 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 28.02.2017 rightly directed the 4th respondent to execute conveyance deed in her name. 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 28.02.2017 rightly directed the 4th respondent to execute conveyance deed in her name. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached the Director, Land Administration (Appeals) who remanded the matter back to 2nd respondent for fresh enquiry on consideration of entire material only, 2nd respondent passed the order dated 31.03.2021. There is no error in the impugned order dated 31.03.2021. 10. She further contends that after the death of her husband, she and her elder son P.Suresh Kumar who was then working as Junior Assistant in APSFC, maintained the family, provided good education and also performed their marriages including the marriage of the 2nd petitioner. As on the date of death of her husband, 2nd petitioner was 16 years old, pursuing his intermediate education. Despite support of the family members, he did not study well. 2nd petitioner forced her to get her husband's job on compassionate grounds for which all other family members consented. After getting the job, 2nd petitioner did not contribute to the family. They resided together in the subject house up to 2007. 11. After the marriage of 2nd petitioner with the 1st Petitioner, at the instance of 1st petitioner, 2nd petitioner necked 5th respondent and other family members out from the house. Both the Petitioners, with mala fide intention to grab the property, forged documents of her brother-in-law and got electricity and water connection, transferred in their name. 12. Unable to bare the torture and harassment at the hands of the petitioners, her first son P. Suresh Kumar left the house and thereafter, they harassed her. Immediately after release of G.Os. for regularization of the subject house, the petitioners without any right, claim, document or any kind of authorization in order to knock away the property fraudulently tried to neck her out of the house. When she refused to go away from the subject house, the petitioners forcibly necked her out and locked the door without water and food. She was 80 years old then. 13. At present she is 84 years old and suffering with old age ailments which require treatment. Her elder son P. Suresh Kumar is providing for her medical expenses and day-to-day needs. Therefore, she sought to dismiss the present writ petition. FINDINGS OF THE COURT:- 14. 5th respondent is the mother of the 2nd petitioner. 1st petitioner is the wife of the 2nd petitioner. Her elder son P. Suresh Kumar is providing for her medical expenses and day-to-day needs. Therefore, she sought to dismiss the present writ petition. FINDINGS OF THE COURT:- 14. 5th respondent is the mother of the 2nd petitioner. 1st petitioner is the wife of the 2nd petitioner. Both the petitioners and 5th respondent are claiming regularization of the subject property under G.O.Ms.No.59, dated 30.12.2014. They are claiming that they are in possession of the subject property and they are eligible to get the subject property regularized in their favour. 15. 5th respondent and her husband late P.Janardhan were blessed with six children, three sons and three daughters. Smt. P.Shashikala and Smt. K.Kalpana are the daughters of 5th respondent. 2nd petitioner is her youngest son. 2nd son of 5th respondent died on 23.08.2006 leaving his wife and two children. First son of 5th respondent Sri P.Satish Kumar, was blessed with three children. 16. In the light of the same, it is relevant to note that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.59, dated 30.12.2014 for regularization and transfer of rights on lands encroachments on unobjectionable government land and surplus land under Urban Land Ceiling to the people on payment basis. The terms and conditions mentioned in G.O.Ms. No.59, dated 30.12.2014 are as follows:- a. Possession in unobjectionable Government lands and surplus lands Under Land Ceiling will be regularized by way of alienations. b. The possession held on or before 02.06.2014 is eligible for regularization. The following are the rates to be collected for regularization to the respective extents of residential. c. Possession upto 250 square Yards 50% of the basic value as on 02.06.2014. d. Possession up-to 500 square yards 75% of the basic value as on 02.06.2014. They have also to submit proof of identity, proof of possession by producing any of the following documents:- Proof of identity:- a) Adhaar card, b) Any other document, Proof of possession: (any one of these)- 1) A Registered Document, 2) Property Tax Receipt, 3) Electricity Bill Receipt, 4) Water bill receipt, 5) Any other proof to establish possession, 17. As per the said G.O., a Committee consisting of Revenue Divisional Officer of the concerned Division as Chairman and the Tahsildar concerned as the Member Convener shall constitute the Committee of Regularization. Committee of Regularization shall dispose of all the applications received for regularization within 90 days from the date of its receipt. As per the said G.O., a Committee consisting of Revenue Divisional Officer of the concerned Division as Chairman and the Tahsildar concerned as the Member Convener shall constitute the Committee of Regularization. Committee of Regularization shall dispose of all the applications received for regularization within 90 days from the date of its receipt. As per the recommendations of the Committee, the Tahsildar concerned shall get the conveyance deed executed in the name of family member of the family. The Joint Collector concerned will be the Grievance Redressal Authority in the matter if any and he may give directions to the Committee as he deems fit. 18. 5th respondent is mother of 2nd petitioner. 2nd petitioner’s father and husband of 5th respondent, i.e. Sri P. Janardhan, was a teacher and he died on 19.02.1984 while he was in service. Therefore, compassionate appointment was provided to the 2nd petitioner on the consent given by his two brothers, three sisters and mother. Presently he is working in Transport Department. 19. It is the specific case of the 5th respondent that the subject house was allotted to her husband. In fact her husband requested the office to allot the subject house to his younger brother Sri P.Vasudev Rao and accordingly allotted. He purchased a house long back and left the said house. Therefore, 5th respondent, her husband along with the children started living in the said house since 1960. The said fact was admitted by Sri. P.Vasudev Rao, brother of husband of 5th respondent. The said Sri P.Vasudeva Rao, also filed an affidavit to the said effect. In the said affidavit, Sri P.Vasudev Rao, specifically stated that he along with his wife and 5 children, his elder brother (husband of 5th respondent) and his wife P.Lakshmi Bai/5th respondent and his six children used to live in the said house. Since the same was not sufficient enough to all the family members to reside, in the year 1970, he purchased a house at Chudi Bazar, and left the said house. After the death of his brother, his sister-in-law/5th respondent herein brought up and provided care for all the children and performed their marriages. Therefore, she is entitled for regularization of the said property. The petitioners are not entitled for regularization of the said property. The petitioners created documents only to knock away the subject property. 20. After the death of his brother, his sister-in-law/5th respondent herein brought up and provided care for all the children and performed their marriages. Therefore, she is entitled for regularization of the said property. The petitioners are not entitled for regularization of the said property. The petitioners created documents only to knock away the subject property. 20. 5th respondent has filed the said affidavit of Sri P.Vasudeva Rao, power consumption receipt, water consumption receipt and Family Members Certificate, etc. 21. 1st petitioner submitted an application in terms of G.O.Ms.No.58, dated 30.12.2014 seeking regularization of the subject property. Vide endorsement dated 06.07.2015, 4th respondent informed the 1st petitioner since the subject property is 150sq.yards, the said application was treated as an application submitted in terms of G.O.Ms.No.59, dated 30.12.2014 instead of G.O.Ms.No.58,dated 30.12.2014. The subject property is in possession of the 1st petitioner and it is to be regularized subsequent to the payment of amount within 15 days of the receipt of the said endorsement. Thereafter, she has paid the said amount of Rs.2,59,000/-. In proof of the same, she has filed copies of challans. Coming to know about the said developments, 5th respondent, and her three daughters, elder son, wife and legal heirs of 2nd son submitted objections dated 23.06.2016 with 4th respondent on 06.06.2016 and 15.06.2016. 4th respondent in turn addressed a letter dated 02.11.2016 to the 3rd respondent furnishing the details of the family members who attended hearing on 28.10.2016. Upon hearing them, vide proceedings dated 02.11.2016, 3rd respondent observed that the 1st petitioner as well as other family members (only sons) have the possession proofs as per the guidelines of the G.O.Ms.No.59. 2nd petitioner is currently residing in the said premises. Moreover, the daughters i.e. Kalpana and Shashikala, have agreed to share the subject land among three brothers equally as the 2nd petitioner is not looking after their mother/5th respondent. Therefore, 4th respondent informed the said facts to the 3rd respondent and sought for necessary instructions. 22. Vide proceedings, dated 28.02.2017, 3rd respondent informed the 4th respondent to execute the conveyance deed in the name of 5th respondent considering the objections and request made by the family members. Therefore, 4th respondent informed the said facts to the 3rd respondent and sought for necessary instructions. 22. Vide proceedings, dated 28.02.2017, 3rd respondent informed the 4th respondent to execute the conveyance deed in the name of 5th respondent considering the objections and request made by the family members. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Hyderabad, who in turn, vide order dated 13.08.2017 directed the 4th respondent not to execute conveyance deed and not to entertain any application under G.O.Ms.No.58/59, in respect of subject land there is a family dispute and also multiple claims on the property in question. The applicants were directed to approach appropriate Forum for redressal of their grievance. 23. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Director, Land Administration (Appeals), office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, who in turn, vide order dated 12.02.2018 remanded the matter back to the Joint Collector, with a direction to conduct de novo enquiry and disposal of the case afresh. 24. The aforesaid facts would reveal that 2nd petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground on the death of his father with the consent of his two brothers, three sisters and mother. 1st petitioner is his wife. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim that they alone are in possession of the subject property and seek for regularization of the same. In fact, 5th respondent and her two sons were also residing in the said property. They have also filed proof of possession and proof of identity. In fact, Sri P.Vasudev Rao, brother of husband of 5th respondent also filed proof of possession and his identity with regard to subject property. An affidavit narrating entire facts was submitted. Elder son, legal heirs of 2nd son and three daughters also submitted their objections with respondent Nos.3 and 4 stating that the petitioners cannot claim regularization of the subject property. All of them in their objections specifically stated that after the death of father of 2nd petitioner, 5th respondent brought them up, provided education and performed their marriages. 2nd petitioner, having obtained appointment on compassionate ground with the consent of other two brothers, three sisters and mother, cannot seek for regularization of the subject property. He has neglected his mother/5th respondent who is 84 years old as of now. She is suffering with various old age ailments. 2nd petitioner, having obtained appointment on compassionate ground with the consent of other two brothers, three sisters and mother, cannot seek for regularization of the subject property. He has neglected his mother/5th respondent who is 84 years old as of now. She is suffering with various old age ailments. She is staying with her elder son. There are specific allegation against the 2nd petitioner that he is threatening his brothers, sisters and his mother. On receipt of the objections, counter claim from 5th respondent, on the request made by respondent Nos.3 and 4, 5th respondent also paid an amount of Rs.2,59,000/- vide two challans No.25002302011, dated 17.03.2017 and 18.03.2017 towards regularization. All the family members including 5th respondent except the petitioners submitted objections stating in one voice that the petitioners are not entitled for regularization and 5th respondent is entitled for regularization in respect of the subject property. On consideration of the said aspects only, vide impugned order dated 31.03.2021, 2nd respondent rejected the claim of the 1st petitioner and allowed the counter claim made by 5th respondent. 25. It is relevant to note that 1st petitioner is the wife of the 2nd petitioner and a homemaker. It is apt to note that as per G.O.Ms.No.59 only female member is entitled for execution of conveyance deed. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the 2nd petitioner with a mal intent to get the subject property regularized in the name of his wife, 1st petitioner herein, filed the said application contending that they are in possession of the subject property. 26. As discussed supra, 2nd petitioner having opted compassionate appointment with the consent of his brothers, sisters, mother, cannot now neglect his mother and deprive the right of his brothers and sisters over the subject property and get the subject property regularized. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for regularization of subject property. 5th respondent is entitled for regularization of subject property. 27. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for regularization of subject property. 5th respondent is entitled for regularization of subject property. 27. As discussed supra, considering the fact that the 5th respondent is 84 years old now and has already paid the entire amount for regularization, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 4th respondent is directed to execute conveyance deed in respect of the subject property i.e. premises bearing No.13-2-319 admeasuring 173 sq.yards situated at Dhulpet, Aramghar, Hyderabad, in favour of 5th respondent as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.