HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 19352 OF 2010 Thursday, the Twenty Fourth day of November, Two Thousand and Eleven Between Pervaz R.Bengalli Petitioner AND The Estate Officer, Andhra Pradesh Circle, Secunderabad Cantonment, Secunderabad Respondents ORDER: Once again an adjournment is sought by the learned Additional Solicitor General, though the matter was adjourned more than once to enable the counsel to get instructions atleast with regard to the aspect of paragraph 9 of the petitioner’s affidavit. In the absence of counter affidavit, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Solicitor General. The subject matter of the writ petition relates to the alleged unauthorized constructions carried out in premises B.No.148, GLR Sy. No.736, Secunderabad Cantonment. The proceedings taken by the respondents with respect to the aforesaid premises was contested by the petitioner by appearing before the Estate Officer in Case No.21/188/EV/SY.No.736/B.No.148/20. The impugned order of the Estate Officer dated 30.6.2010 demanding damages and interest from the petitioner is questioned in this writ petition. Mr. C.Balagopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner inter alia contended that the findings in the impugned order that the aforesaid premises is a public premises is incorrect and he has raised various other grounds as well questioning jurisdiction of the respondents. Apart from the aforesaid questions, learned counsel has raised a specific ground in paragraph No.9 of the affidavit that the aforesaid case was heard by the then Estate Officer and the last hearing was on 21.10.2008. However, the said Estate Officer who heard the matter was thereafter transferred and the present impugned order is passed by the successor Estate Officer almost two years after the last hearing. Learned counsel, therefore submits that the impugned order which is passed by the successor Estate Officer without hearing the petitioner, suffers from unfairness, impropriety and violation of principles of natural justice. As mentioned above, no counter affidavit is filed by the respondents, though the proceedings of this court show that the matter was coming up on various dates of hearing right from 13.8.2010 to enable the respondent to get instructions and file counter. The averments in paragraph 9 of the petitioner’s affidavit, therefore, can be taken as uncontroverted. Even otherwise, the impugned order itself reads thus: “…After submitting the above additional documents, the Advocate requested for time to submit oral evidence of his client and hence another date has been fixed on 21.10.2008 at 1200 hours for submitting oral evidence. On 21.10.2008, Shri K.Vijaya Sarathi, Advocate appeared and explained the written submission made earlier and did not submit any oral evidence as agreed. Thus the proceedings were concluded and reserved for final orders…” It is evident from the above, therefore, that the last hearing of the matter was on 21.10.2008 and obviously the Estate Officer who heard the matter was succeeded by the Estate Officer who has passed the impugned order on 30.6.2010. The petitioner’s contention is, therefore, well founded to the extent of the aforesaid ground, which warrants the impugned order to be set aside. Therefore, it is just and necessary to remand the proceedings for fresh hearing before the Estate Officer, who shall give notice and opportunity to the petitioner and consider and dispose of the proceedings afresh by duly considering the material on record. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the proceedings are remitted for consideration afresh and passing appropriate orders. There shall be no orders as to costs. ______________________ Justice Vilas V.Afzulpurkar November 25, 2011 MAS