THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA C.M.A.No. 578 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the award dated 29.11.2010 passed by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A. No.1006 of 2010, whereby and whereunder, the appellants herein were held to be encroachers within the definition of Section 83 of the A.P. Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) and directed to vacate the schedule premises. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material available on record. 3. As seen from the record, it appears that initially the impugned proceedings were initiated before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kurnool. However, while the said proceedings were pending before the Deputy Commissioner, it seems that Endowments Tribunal was constituted, and therefore, all the proceedings pending before the Deputy Commissioner were directed to be transferred to the Endowments Tribunal for disposal according to law. 4. While so, now the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants - respondents is that after transfer of the proceedings from the Deputy Commissioner to the Tribunal, the Tribunal is required to issue notice to both the parties which the Tribunal failed to do so, as such, he could not appear and lead evidence on behalf of the appellants before the Tribunal, therefore, passing the impugned award in their absence without giving notice and opportunity to lead the evidence by the Tribunal is unsustainable. The above position is fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the respondents - applicants. Since both the counsel conceded that notice is required to be issued to both the parties by the Tribunal before proceeding with the proceedings after transfer of the same from the Deputy Commissioner and that as no notice was served on them by the Tribunal as evident from the order of the Tribunal dated 17.09.2010, which is extracted hereunder, this Court is of the view that the matter is required to be remanded back to the Tribunal to comply with the procedural aspects etc. and for fresh disposal. “In addition to the above intimated to the Advocates over phone from the office also standing council AVS and also list sent to the Bar Association to the Kunrool for the notice of the All Advocates and acknowledged by Secretary to circulate. Hence sufficient notice is there. The Ptr Manager and rep. by Sri AVS. Respondent called absent with no representation. From the service of notice suffice the rep. though can be however not set exparte but taken up to proceed with absence from the notice P.A. of Ptr, E.D. on record and taken on oath as P.W.1 Chief Examination and Ex.P-1 to P-6 marked. As respondent called absent with no rep. treated no cross examination. PE closed for RE if any to file proof affidavit and presence at Hyderabad Tribunal premises, Bhumanagalli, Barkatpura, Road No.6, Call on 28.9.2010.” Therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 29.11.2010 is set aside remanding the matter back to the Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad directing it to comply with the procedural aspects of issuing notices to either side and giving opportunity of leading evidence etc. and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. ___________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J 17th August, 2012 CHV