KOLLURU GOPAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question as to whether a fresh notification is necessary for enforcement of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956 after the 2nd respondent- Municipal Corporation had come into being is the question involved in this appeal.

(2.) The appellant- writ petitioner owns land to the extent of 406 Sq. yds. of land in T.S.No.270/l-A part and 531 Sq.yds in T.S.No 266 part in Market ward, Periki veedhi, Block No.9, Visakhapatnam. The land is situated in a prime area. The premises consists of building and a hut and the same had been let out to a tenant who in turn illegally sublet the same to a number of tenants who put up huts in the land. It is alleged that at the instance of some of the Councilors, the then Visakhapatam Municipal Council passed a resolution on 12-7-1970 for acquiring the said land under the A.P. Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land)Act, 1956 (for short "the Slum Act") and a notification thereof was published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 20-9-1990 declaring the said lands as a slum area coming within the purview of Section 3(1) of the Act with a view to acquire the lands comprised in the said area for undertaking the execution of work designed to improve the area in the interest of public health, safety or convenience of its neighbourhood. The 2nd respondent thereafter by reason of the impugned show cause notice dated 30-8-1991, issued in exercise of the powers under Section 3(4) of the said Slum Act called upon the appellant-writ petitioner to show-cause as to why the land in question should not be acquired for the above purpose and to file his objection, if any, thereof. It is contended that the land sought to be acquired does not fall within the definition of slum area as it is neither in low lying area nor it is in an unsanitary or squalid locality and there was excess delegation of power by the Government to the Municipal Commissioner to acquire any area declaring the same as slum area.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that since the provisions of the Slum Act were made applicable to the limits of Municipality and as the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad had come into existence on 16-4-1979, the provisions of the Slum Act cannot be made applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.