BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA SAMAJ Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the notification dated 30th December, 1977 published in the Karnataka Gazette of the same date, issued under Sec. 17 of the Karnataka Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), produced as Annexure-F. The petitioner has also challenged the' notification issued under sub-section (1) of Sec. 5 of the Act, dated 25-7-1978 (Annexure-E) and also the another notification dated 18 1-1978 (Annexure-G) and the Government order dated 21/ 23-8-1979 (Annexure-H).

(2.) The subject-matter of the writ petition is 14 guntas of vacant land forming part of the total area of 1 acre 7 guntas of land comprised in Survey No. 691, situated at St. John's Road, Bangalore, the boun daries of which are as follows : East-the land and building known as 'Thopa Mudaliar's Chatram'; West-St. John's Road; South-passage from St. John's Road to Thoppa Mudaliar Chatram; North -the plot of land purchased by V. D. Viswanatha Mudaliar. The first respondent, in exercise of the power under Sec. 3 (1) of the Act, has declared the aforesaid plot of land along with the other plots as slum area under the Notification dated 28th March, 1977 published in the Karnataka Gazette of the same date. Thereafter, again in exercise of the power under sub-section (1) of Sec. 11 of the Act, the 1st respondent has further declared the very area by the notification published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 28th September 1977 as slum clearance area. It is pertinent to notice at this stage itself that these two notifications have not been challenged in this writ petition. Pursuant to the declaration made to the effect that the area in question along with the other area is slum clearance area, the State Government has issued the impugned notification dated 20th December, 1977 published in the Gazette of the same date under Sec. 17(1) of the Act.

(3.) Two contentions are put forth by the petitioner : (1) That the area cannot be declared as slum clearance area and the area is not required to be acquired for the purpose of slum clearance; (2) that the petitioner being the owner of the land in question, is a person interested in it and as such, it was entitled to have a notice of the proposed acquisition and as no notice was issued to the petitioner and no opportunity to resist the acquisition was afforded even though such right is guaranteed to the petitioner under the Act, the acquisition is bad in law.