MOHD MAQBOOL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners claim to be the legal representatives of one Sree Kareemullah, original owner of premises bearing No. 16-5-291/1 of Khidki Bood Ali Shah, Hyderabad. The property admeasuring 460 square yards is said to have been purchased under registered document on 19th Azur, 1958 Fasli. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent issued notification dated 04-01-1996 under Section 3 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act' ). This was followed by a notification under Section 3 (2) of the Act dated 15-03-1996. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 20606 of 1996 challenging the same on the ground that they were not put on notice by the 2nd respondent. The writ petition was allowed on 01-10-1997 and the notification under Section 3 (2) was set aside. The 2nd respondent was directed to issue notice to the petitioners. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court, the 2nd respondent issued notice to the petitioners directing them to show cause as to why notification under Section 3 (2) of the Act, be not issued. The petitioners submitted explanation. It was pleaded that the area is covered by a pucca house and it cannot be treated as a slum. Other grounds were also urged. Through order dated 28-11 -1998, the 2nd respondent rejected the objections of the petitioners. The same is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) HEARD Sri L. Ravi Chander, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration for the 1st respondent; Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri Srinivas Emani, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 9.

(3.) THE 2nd respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioners directing them to explain as to why the notification under Section 3 (2) be not issued in respect of their property. The petitioners raised several objections and pointed out that the area cannot be declared as slum at all. The 2nd respondent however refused to go into that aspect and the same is evident from paragraph 5 of the order: