CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES DEFENCE Vs. COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL OFFICER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner a Co-operative Housing Society Civilian Employees, Defence Services, represented by its Secretary, the other petitioners its members challenged the Notification issued by the Commissioner and Special Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad under S. 3(1) of the A.P. Slum-Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act33 of 1956 (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) It is averred in the petition that the land was acquired for the purpose of constructing houses and the members have constructed houses at considerable cost and there are disputes about the land and in view of the disputes regarding land, proceedings under S.145 of the Cr. P.C. were initiated and the land was under attachment of the Executive Magistrate under S.146 of the code and the notification issued by the 1st respondent is illegal as the same was issued without any notice to the petitioners and the 1st respondent has no power to issue notification under the Act and the delegation of the powers by the Government to the Ist respondent is illegal and the notification declaring the land in question as slum area is also illegal and unjust and the same is liable to be set aside. The application was opposed not only by the Commissioner and the urban Development authority but also by some of the parties who were added as party respondents supporting the notification stating that it is highly essential to declare the land in question as slum area and that the petitioners themselves have no right to question the notification Sri. V. Jagannadha Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners mainly argued that the impugned notification is void as opposed to the principles of natural justice and declaring the area in question as a slum are a without affording an opportunity is not only adequate but empty. It is also argued that the scheme of the Act does not exclude any opportunity being afforded before issuing notification under S.3 (1) and the dicta of the Full Bench in P. Apparao v. State AIR 1970 Andh pra 318 has lost its efficacy in view of the subsequent pronouncements of the Supreme Court regarding post decisional opportunities.

(3.) It is necessary to examine the scheme of the Act and also notice the effect of the Full Beach on this question. The Act is intended for the acquisition of lands in slum areas and the preamble declares that it was noticed that there are slum areas in almost every town in the State of A.P. which are a source of danger to public health and sanitation and it was felt that it has not been possible to provide for the basic needs of sewerage, water supply and road and side-drains in these slum areas, without causing excessive financial strain on the owners of the lands affected and hence the Act is intended to clear those lands in those areas and undertake the execution of works designed to improve those areas. The Act is made applicable in the entire State of A.P. in 1961 by Act 41 of 1961. S.1 (3) enables the Government to apply the provisions of the Act in any Municipality in the State by issuing a notification on such date as the Government may by such notification in the A.P. Gazette appoint. The said section provides that a notice should be issued to the Municipality for not less than two months before issuing the notification. The slum area was defined to mean any area declared to be a slum area under sub-sec. 91) of S.3. Section 3 which is crucial in the present enquiry is in the following terms.