(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1344 OF 1994 Sk. Chand Sk. Aamin, deceased through legal representatives : 1. Sk. Mukhtar s/o. Sk. Chand, Age : 62 years, Occupation : Doctor. 2. Sk. Nisar s/o. Sk. Chand, Age : 59 years, Occupation : Nil. 3. Sk. Anwar s/o. Sk. Chand, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Nil. 4. Sk. Asrar s/o. Sk. Chand, Age : 53 years, Occupation : Service. 5. Sk. Vaquar s/o. Sk. Chand, Age : 49 years, Occupation : Medical Practitioner. 6. Naaz Rukhsana d/o. Sk. Chand, Age : 43 years, Occupation : Lecturer. All R/o. House No. 1.20.48, Near Pir Suban Masjid, Chelipura, Aurangabad. .. Petitioners. versus (2) 1. The Custodian of evacuee property, State of Maharashtra, and Authorised Settlement Commissioner, Kokan Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Maharashtra State, Bombay. 2. The Assistant Custodian General of Evacuee Property of Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Bombay - 32. 3. The Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property / the Collector, Aurangabad. 4. The Tahasildar, Aurangabad, Aurangabad. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. S.P. Deshmukh, Advocate, holding for Mr. P.R. Deshmukh, Senior Advocate, and Mr. S.V. Chandole, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 4. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 7TH JUNE 2010 (3) ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 21st March 1994, passed by the respondent no.1, thereby directing eviction of the petitioner from House No. 1018 (Old) i.e. 1-20-48 (New), situated at Chelipura, Aurangabad. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner, that though the matter was fixed for hearing on 24th February 1994, the petitioner had sought an adjournment either for 19th March 1994 or 25th March 1994, since Counsel for the petitioner was not feeling well. It is, however, submitted that adjourned date was not communicated to the petitioner and as such, the matter came to be decided without the petitioner having an opportunity to put forth his case. 3. No reply has been filed on behalf of respondent no.1. The allegation of the petitioner, therefore, that the impugned order came to be passed without the petitioner having an opportunity to represent his case, has gone unchallenged. In that view of the matter, we find that it would be in the interest of justice, that the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no.1 for hearing it afresh in accordance with law. (4) 4. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 21st March 1994, passed by the respondent no.1, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no.1 for deciding it afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 5. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1344