IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that the petitioners were not entitled to regularization of the property due to lack of evidence supporting their claims and the rightful ownership of the 5th respondent based on family ties.

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. 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 r