THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.23502 of 2002 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed to declare the proceedings of the first respondent dated 09.10.2002 as illegal, arbitrary and in violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioners, three in number, claim to be in possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.10.18 cents of land in R.S.No.145 (old Sy.No.217) situated at Rolupadi village, Tiruvuru Mandal, Krishna District consequent on the first petitioner’s husband having purchased the said land from the original pattedars. The third respondent issued notices, under the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, on the ground that the said land was government land. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed W.P.No.8175 of 1992 before this Court, and obtained stay of dispossession for a period of two weeks from 02.07.1992, to enable them to file an appeal before the second respondent. Thereafter they filed an appeal before the second respondent which was dismissed on 04.07.1994. Aggrieved thereby, they filed a revision before the first respondent who, by order dated 09.10.2002, dismissed the revision. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioners assert that their counsel had argued before the earlier Joint Collector, but he was transferred without pronouncing judgment; the present Joint Collector, without issuing any further notice and without hearing them, had passed the impugned order; and the impugned order mentions the last date of hearing as 26.11.2001 on which date their counsel had argued before the earlier Joint Collector. The petitioners would, therefore, contend that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice. Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would submit that it is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine any of the other contentions raised in the Writ Petition since the impugned order dated 09.10.2002 is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The specific averment, in paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, is not denied in the counter affidavit. It is evident, therefore, that while an oral hearing was afforded by the previous Joint Collector, the subsequent Joint Collector passed the impugned order without affording the petitioners an oral hearing, and without even putting them on notice. The impugned order dated 09.10.2002 is, accordingly, set aside. The first respondent shall put the petitioners on notice, afford them an opportunity of hearing, and then pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. The entire exercise in this regard culminating in passing of an order shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:10.02.2011 Usd/ksp