Partly allowed

State of T.S. v. Dr. Neelam Krishna

Telangana HC9 Feb 2023WA/152/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a notification declaring land as a slum area under Section 3(1) of the A.P. Slum Improvement Act, 1956 due to lack of notice and hearing. It directed the District Collector to hear objections before acquiring the land for improvement.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notification dated 28.05.2011 quashed; subsequent notice under Section 3(2) rendered inoperative; direction to District Collector to hear objections within 30 days.

State of T.S. Vs Dr. Neelam Krishna — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹¹ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO. 152 OF 2018 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 40781OF 2016

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO. 152 OF 2018

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated

¶9

16.10.2017 in W.P.No.17154of 2011 on the file of the High Court.

¶10

Between:

¶11

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Deoartment. Secretariat, Hyderabad. (previously shown as State-of A.p)

¶12

The District Collector, Hyderabad District at Hyderabad.

¶13

The Tahsildar, Musheerabad Mandal, Hyderabad.

¶14

,..APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶15

AND

¶16

Dr. Neelam Krishna S/o. Late N.B. Narsimham, aged about 69 years, Occ: Medical Practitioner, No.7-2-5'11 and 512, BurugucFettibazar, Sec;bad.

¶17

...RESPONDENT/PET|TIONER in Wp

¶18

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Additional Commissioner, Secunderabad.

¶19

R. Narsing Rao, S/o. late Srihari, Hindu, aged about 53 Years, R/o D.No. 6-6Balaiah Doddi, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad.

¶20

4- K. Nagaraju, S/o. Narayana, Hindu, aged about 43 Years, Rl/o D.No. 6-6-194, - Neelam Balaiah Doddi, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad.

T i t

I( !, I I I I

Laxman,^{S/o. Mallaiah,} _Hindu, aged about 50^years, Rt/o D.No. 6-6-ig6, Neelam Balaiah Doddi, Kavadrquda, Secunderabad.

¶26

V. Ramulu,^{S/o. late} Laxminarayana, Hindu, aged about 44^years, Rt/o D.No. 6-6-197, Neelqm Balarah Doddi,' Kavadiguda, Slcunderabad.

¶27

7 E.-Laxminarayana, S/o. late Ralarah, Hindu, aged about 65 years, R/o D.No. 6-6-199, Neelam Balaiah Doddi, Kavadiguda, Slecunderabad.

¶28

8 Lalitha E-. Krishna, Hindu, aged about 45^years, E Rl/o D.No. 6-6-201 , Neelam Balaiah Doddi, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad.

¶29

9 p.-faqqsryggy S/o laie Matlaiah, Hindu, aged about 53 years, Coolie, Rl/o D.No. 6-6-207, Neelam Balaiah Doddi, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad.

¶30

P. Shankar, S/o. late Siddaiah. Hindu, aged about 61 years, F/o D.No. 6-621 0, Neelam Balaiah Doddi, Kavadiguda,-secunderabad.

¶31

N. Krishnaveni, W/o. late Ramaiah, Hindu, aged about 69 years, Housewife Ri/o D.No. 6-6-214, Neelam Balaiah Doddi, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad.

¶32

12.V. Ambamma, W/o. late Yadagiri, Hindu, aged about 73 Years, Rl/o D.No. 6-6215, Neelam Balaiah Doddi, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad.

¶33

S. Anasuya, W/o- late Shankaraiah, Hindu, aged about 78 Years, Rl/o D.No. 6-6-216, Neelam Balaiah Doddi. Kavadiguda, Secunderabad. Died per LRs 13(a) to 13(d)

¶34

13 (a). S. Venkateshwar Rao, Sio. Late S. Shankariah, Aged: 48 years, Occ: Business,

¶35

13(b). S. Sree Latha, W/o. Late S. Narsing Rao, Aged 56 years, Occ: House Wife.

¶36

13(c). S. Vijay Kumar, S/o. Late S Narsing Rao, Aged 38 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee.

¶37

13(d). S.Shiva Shanker, S/o. Late S. Narsing Rao, Aged: 33 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee.

¶38

All are Fl/o. 6-6-216 & 21611 Jeera, Bansi Lal Pet Division, Neelam Balaiah Compound, Secunderabad - 500 003.

¶39

(Respondent Nos.'13(a) to 13(d) are brought on record as LR's of deceased respondent No.13 as per Court Order dated 12.02.2021 in l.A.No.3 of 2018 in W.A.No. 152 of 2018).

¶40

14.V. Laxman, S/o. late Yadagiri, Hindu, aged about 55 Years, Fyo D.No.6-62'l B, Neelam Balaiah Doddi, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad.

¶41

'15. P. Sathaiah, S/o. late Siddaiah, Hindu, aged about 65 Years, Coolie, R/o D.No. 6-6-226, Neelam Balaiah Doddi, Kavadiguda, Sec'bad.

¶42

K. Narsing Rao, S/o. late Kamalamma, Hindu, aged about 52 Years, FVo D.No. 6-6-222, Neelam Balaiah Doddi, Kavadiguda,-secunderabad.

¶43

K. Satyanar_ayana, S/o. .lale Ramchander, Hindu, aged about 56 years. Barber' Rvo D.No. 6-6-224, Neeram earaiirr bodJiR"uia-igrJr, 5;';ai."''"'

¶44

T. Gopat, S/o.

¶45

-224/1 , Neelam Jll:,Y'HfJi,*li,y,rfss,%31?['r48^{years, R/o} D No. 6-6-

¶46

i I I

¶47

I j

¶48

19.S. Krishna, S/o. Iate Narasimhulu, Hindu, aged about 65 Years, Rt/o D.No. 6- 6-21612, Neelam Balaiah Doddi, Kavadiguda, Sec'bad.

¶49

tV. Umavathi, S/o. late Mallaiah, Hindu, aged about 68 Years, Fyo D.No. 6-622212, Neelam Balaiah Doddi, Kavadiguda, Sec'bad.

¶50

2't.G. Srinivasulu, S/o. late Shivaraj, Hindu, aged about 48 Years, Employee Rl/o 6-6-225, Neelam Balaiah Doddi, Kavadiguda, Sec'bad.

¶51

22.8. Babu, s/o. late Ramakrishna, Hindu, aged about 58 Years, Coolie, R/o D.No. 6-6-220, Neelam Balaiah Doddi, Kavadiguda, Sec'bad.

¶52

K. Narayana, S/o. late Yellaiah, Hindu, aged about 68^years, watchman R/o D.No. 6-6-222, Neelam Balaiah Doddi, Kavadiguda, Secunderibad.

¶53

24.R. Narender, S/o. late Srihari, Hindu, aged about 45 years, R/o D.No.6-6219lA, Neelam Balaiah Doddi, Kavadigud-a, Secunderabad.

¶54

...RESPONDENTS

¶55

lA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶56

Petition under section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation of order of Learned single Judge dt. 16.1o.2011 in wp.No. 17154 of 2O1'1, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal.

¶57

Counsel for the Appeltant: SRt T. SRIKANTH REDDY, cp FOR REVENUE

¶58

Counsel for the Respondent No.1:

¶59

SRI VEDULA VENKATA RAMANA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR M/S BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES

¶60

Counsel for the Respondent No.2:

¶61

SRI K. RAVINDER REDDY, STANDING COUNSEL FOR GHMC

¶62

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 24: SRI A. PRABHAKAR RAO

¶63

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.13(a) to 13(d): SRI p. SRt HARSHA REDDY

¶64

¶65

WRIT PETITION NO: 40781OF 2016

¶66

Between:

¶67

D_r. Neelam Krishna, S/o. Late N.B. Narsimham, aged aboul 73 years, Occupation: Medical Practitioner, No.7-2-511 and 512, BuruEuChettibazar, Selunderabad.

¶68

...PETITIONER

¶69

AND

¶70

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶71

The District Collector, Hyderabad District at Hyderabad.

¶72

The Tahsildar, Musheerabad Mandal, Hyderabad.

¶73

The Greater Hyderabad Munrcipal Corporation, rep- by its Additional Commissioner, Secunderabad

¶74

...RESPONDENTS

¶75

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may^be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the 2nd respondent rejecting the explanation^{of the petitioner dated} 02.11.2O11 and issuing the^proceedings No.688/LA/UCD/GHI\4Cl201'1/493,^dated 31.10.2016 proceeding to acquire the^land admeasuring^{2678 sq. meters in} Sy.No.21 6, T.S.No.1 , Block No.L, Ward No.1 09, Bakaram Village,^Musheerabad Mandal, Hyderabad District under section 3⁽²⁾ of the A.P. Slum^lmprovement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956, is arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural^justice and direct the respondents not to interfere with the^possession and enjoyment of the^petitioner over the said^property and^{grant such} other^{relief as it} deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

I I l

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 50225 OF 20 16)

¶80

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in sLipport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the proceedings No.6B8/LfuUCDlGHMCl2l111493, dated 31 .10.2016 of the 2nd respondent relating to the land admeasuring 2678 sq. meters in Sy.No.216, T.S.No.1, Block No.L, Ward No.109, Circle 18 of Neelam Balaiah Doddi, Bansilalpeta, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶81

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶82

SRI VEDULA VENKATA RAMANA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR M/S BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES

¶83

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3:

¶84

SRI T. SRIKANTH REDDY, GP FOR REVENUE

¶85

Counsel for the Respondent No.4:

¶86

SRI K. RAVINDER REDOY, STANDING COUNSEL FOR GHMC

¶87

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶88

HC-J & ,\ 7R./ W.A.No.152 oJ 2018 &' W.P No.4()781 of 2016

¶89

¶90

THE HON'BLE THE CHIE^{F JUSTICEUJJALBHIIYAN}

¶91

AND

¶92

THE HON'BLE SRI JUS^{TICE N. TUKARAMJI}

¶93

WRIT APPEAL No. 152 of2018

¶94

And

¶95

WRIT PETITIO^{N No.4O781of 2O16}

¶96

cOMMON JUDGMENTi t'e-t^{ttt Ilon'ble the CluefJusttct' UiiolllllulJtt)}

¶97

This order will dispose^{ol Writ Appeal No 152 of 2018} and Writ Petition^{No.40781 ol 2016}

¶98

We have heard Mr. T.Srikanth^{Reddy,learned} Government Pleader for^{Revenuerepresentingthe appellants} in W.A.No.152 of 2Ol8 and^{the ofltcialrespondents in} W.P.No.4078 I of 2016.^{Also heard Mr. VedulaVenkata} Ramana, learned Senior^{Counsel for respondent No' l/writ} petitioner in W.A.No. 152 of^{20 18 and the petitioner in} W.P.No.4078 l of 2016. We have heard Mr.^{K.RavinderReddy,} learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal

¶99

1.t

¶100

4 LT(J & NI'RJ W.A.No. 152 of 2018^& W.P.No.4O781 of^{201 6}

¶101

Corporation^(GHMC) for respondent^No.2 in^W.A'No.752of 2018 and respondent No.4 in^W.P.No.4078 I of^{20 16 and} Mr. A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel^{for respondentNos.3 to} 24 in W.A.No.l52 of 2018.

¶102

Writ Appeal No. 152 of 20 18 is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.lO.2Ol7 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing Writ Petition No.17154 of 2Oll filed by the 1"t respondent as the writ petitioner.

¶103

1"t respondent AS the writ petitioner had filed W.P.No.17l54 of 2Ol l assailing the notification dated 28.05.2011 issued under Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956 (briefly referred to hereinafter as 'the SIum Act') declaring land admeasuring 2678 square meters with constructed buildings thereon in Survey No.216 corresponding to T.S.No.1 Block-L, Ward No:109, Circle-18 at Bansilalpet, Musheerabad Mandal, Bakaram Village in the district of Hyderabad (briefly referred to hereinafter as 'the subject laldJ as a slum area.

¶104

;

¶105

¶106

I I(:J &, N'|'R,I W.A.No.152 o.[ 2018 & W-P.No.4O7U1of 2016

¶107

Before we advert to the^{notification dated} 28.O5.2O11, rve mav^{mention that according to the1't} rcspondent, he is one ol^{the co-ownersof the subject land'} There were 42 tenants^{inthe constructedbuildingsl "t} respondent had initiated^{evictionproceedings againstthem} Lln(ler the Andl-rra^{Pradesh Buildings(Lease,Rentand} Evictiorr) Control^{Act, 1960 and had obtair-redorders of} erriction. Out of^{the 42 tenants, 4 were evictedb1' due process} and i 6 others had^{voluntarily vacated thepremises'} Remaining tenants^{had earlier institutedW'P No' 18951 of} 2010 before this Court^{seekinga directionto the appellants} for acquiring the subject^{land under the Slum Act for the} purpose of allotting the^{same to them.W'P'No'18951 of 2010} was disposed ol by this^{Court uide order dated 1B'O4'2011} directing the District^{Collectorof Hyderabadand GHMC to} take a decision^{whether to acquire the subject land or not' It} was thereafter that the^{impugned notificationdated} 28.o5.2o11 was issued and published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, which 1 "t respon dent says he came to knou, on

¶108

¶109

!rrlr--

¶110

HC"I & N'TR.I W.A. No. 152 oJ- 2018 & W.P.No.40781 of 2016

¶111

..1

¶112

06.06.2OI1 when it was^{publishedin the newspapers.This} came to be challenged in^{W.P.No.I7L14 of 2011. During} pendency of the writ petition, appellants issued notice dated 31.10.2011 under Section 3(21 of the^Slum Act.^{After calling} for objections and hearing the same, Collector of Hyderabad District passed an order dated 31. 10.2016 rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner and upholding the notice dated 31.10.2O11 issued under Section 3(2) of the Slum Act. This came to be challenged in Writ Petition No.4O7B1 of 2O76.

¶113

Writ Petition No. 17 1 54 of 20 I 1 was contested by the appellants by hling counter affidavit. Appellant No.3 in the counter aIfidavit stated that persons living in the subject land declared as 'slum area' belong to economically poorer section. Condition of the subject land was unhygienic, there being no civic amenities and proper sanitation facilities. Residents of the area were suffering from diarrhea and other diseases. Report was called for whereafter notilication under Section 3(l) of the Slum Act *as issued. GHMC also filed

¶114

¶115

¶116

I/(rJ & NZI?J W.A.No.152 of 2018^&' W.P.No.10781 of 2016

¶117

counter affrclavit^{colltendillg tl'rat impugnednotilication ['as} issued in accor<lance^{with lau'.}

¶118

Learned Single^{Judge consideredthe provisions of} the Slum Act,^{more particularlySection3 thereof and after} comparing the^{said provisions with the Mysore Slum Areas} (lmprovement and^{Clearance) Act, 1958(briefl'v referredto} hereinafter^{as 'the Mysore Act'), he came to the conclusion} that Section^{3(1) of the Slum Act and Section 3(1) of the} Mysore Act^{are in paimateria'Referring to the decision of} the Supreme^{Court in Governmentof Mysore v' J'V'Bhatl'} learned Single^{Judge came to the conclusion that noticeand} hearing are^{required to be given before issuance ofa} notification under^{Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Slum} Act. Learned^{Single Judgefrom the record found thatno} prior notice was^{issued to the 1"t respondent and he was not} heard before the^{impugned notification was issued 'In the} circumstances,^{learnedSingle Judge set aside the impugned} . notification dated 28.05.20 1 1 further clarifying that the

i AIR 1975 SC 596

HC.I & NT-RJ lv.,,l.h"o. 152 oJ 20tB <* W. P. No.4O78 I of 20 t 6

¶123

subsequent notice under Sub Section (2) of Section 3 would be of no legal Consequence since the very foundation of such notice did not subsist. That apart, learned Single Judge directed the appellants, rather injuncted the appellants, from interfering with the proprietary rights of the 1"r respondent over the subject land.

¶124

In the hearing held on O3.O2.2O23, we had taken a prima facte view that learned Single Judge was not justified in setting aside the notification d.ated. 2g.OS.2Oll and had observed that the matter may be remanded back to the learned Singre Judge for re-consideration and to be heard along with W.p.No.4O7g I of 2016.

¶125

Learned Senior Counsel for the lst respondent/ writ petitioner submits that though the statute is silent as regards notice and hearing, declaration of a land as a .slum area' entails adverse civil consequences. When a decision of an administrative authority or a quasr_judicial authorit5r results in civil consequences upon an affected party,

¶126

{

¶127

HCJ €U NTRJ W.A.No. 152 of 2018 & W.P.No.40781 of 2016

¶128

principles ol natLlral^justice are^{requiredto be foliowed'} Insofar the Slum Act is^{concerned,there is no statutory} exclusion of the^{principlesof natural justice'Therefore,} Supreme Court in^{an identical situation in J'V'Bhat (supra1)} has held that^{before cleclaring a land as a slum area, the} affected parties^{are required 1rl be put on notice and heard'} This is what^{learrredSingle .l uclge has directed'As regards} the subsequent^{notice issucd underSection 3(2) of the Slum} Act is concerned,^{the same would not be of any legal} consequence^{since the declaration of the subjectland as slum} area has been^{set at naughtbv the learnedSingle Judge'}

¶129

On the other^{hand, Mr. T'SrikanthReddy, learned} Government Pleader^{for Revenueappearingfor the appellants} submits that^{there is no requirementof notice ald hearing in} Sub-Section⁽¹⁾ of^{Section 3 of the Slum Act'Noticeand} hearing is deferred^{to a stage when Sub-Section(2) of Section} 3 comes into play. It^{is only then that a person can be said to} /a. ^gga"ued^{because that is the stage when the land is} sought to be acquired. Prior to that stage, title and

l---

I .1

I]C,] & N'I'RJ W.A.No.152 of 2018 & W.P.No.40781 of 2016

¶135

possession of the person interested in the land^{declared as} slum area is not disturbed. He submits^that since^Writ Petition No.40781 of 2016 is pending, the course of action suggested by this Court in the order dated 03.02.2023 rnay be followed and both the writ petitions may be heard together.

¶136

Mr. K.Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC has supported the contentions advanced by the learned Government Pleader.

¶137

On the other hand, Mr. A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 24 in Writ Appeal No.152 of 2018 submits that this Court should protect the rights of the slum dwellers. The Slum Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and therefore the benefit of such a legislation should be made available to the slum dwellers.

¶138

Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court.

¶139

¶140

¶141

HCI &, N'TR.] W.A.No.152 of 2O18 E' W.P.No.4O781 of 20i 6

¶142

Bcfore u'e^{proccecl toexaminethe impugned} notification datr:d^{28.05.20It, it ^/ould be apposite to advert} to the relevant^{provisionsol the Slum Act'Preambleto the} Slum Act says that^{it is an act to provide for the acquisitionof} lands declared^{as slum areasln the Stateof AndhraPradesh'} There are numller^{of slum rireas in almost all towns of the} State which are^{a solrrcc ol danger to public healthand} sanitation.^{Under the existing laws, it has not been possible} to provide for^{the basic neecls o[ seu'erage, water-supply and} road and side-clrains^{il-r thesc slumsareaswithout causing} excessive financial^{strain on the owners of the lands affected'} To obviate such^{difficulty, itwas found expedient first to} acquire the lands^{in those areas and thereafterto undertake} execution^{of work designedto improve those areas'}

¶143

As per^{Section 2(f), 'slum area' has been definedto} mean any area^{declared to be a slum area under Sub-Section} Section 3 deals^{with power ofthe} ( 1) of Section 3. Government to acquire land. As per Sub-Section^{(1), where} the Government is satisfied tl-rat arly area is or may be a

¶144

¶145

HCJ &, N'IR.I W.A.No.152 of 2018 & W.P. No.40781 of 2016

¶146

source of danger to the public health,^{safetyor convenienceof} its neighbourhood by the reason of such area^{being low-lying,} insanitary, squalid or otherwise, it may by notification in^the Gazette declare such area to be a slum area. Sub-Section⁽²⁾ which follows Sub-Section (1) deals with a situation of acquisition of the land or a portion thereof declared as a slum area. It says that rvhere the Government is satisfied that it is necessary to acquire any land in a slum area for the purpose of clearing or improving the area, it may acquire the land by publishing the same in the Gazette a notice to the effect that it has decided to acquire the land in pursuance of SubSection (2) of Section 3. As per the proviso to Sub-Section (2), before publishing such notice the Government shall call upon the owner or any other person who, in the opinion of the Government, is interested in such land to show cause why it should not be acquired and after considering the cause shown by any person interested in the land, the Government may pass such orders as it may deem ht and proper. The Explanation below the proviso clarifies that cause shown by

¶147

HCJ & NTRJ W A.No.152 of 2018 & W.P.No.4O781 of 20i 6

¶148

the person i.terested *ould l)c botl-r in rcspect of Sub-section (1) as ivell as Sub-Section (2). Lr other words, while cause is being shown to a notice issued under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, the person interestecl ntay also object to deciaration of the land as a slum area under Sub-Section (l) of Section 3. Sub-Section (3) says that once the notice is published in the Gazette, the land shall vest absoltrtelv in the Government free from all encumbrances. in tcrms ol Sub-Section (4), the Government mav authorize anv aurthority or olficer to exercise all or any of the powers to be exc.rcised under Section 3.

¶149

Objective of the Slu m Act is to acquire the land declared as. a slum area for development of the same so as to improve the living conditions of the people residing in such area; besides improving public health. Declaration of the land as a slum area under Section 3(1) is not an end in itself. It is the first step towards acquisition of such land. Therefore declaration of a piece of land as slum area has a definite ,,,./^{connotation.In vieq, of the consequenceswhichmay follow,} it

¶150

\ \

¶151

l4 HC,J & N'I'R.] W.A.No.152 of 2018 & W.P.No.40781 of 2016

¶152

¶153

-r

¶154

on notice and heard^{before the land is declaredas a slum} area. As such the^{opportunity of hearing provided in the} proviso to Sub-Section⁽²⁾ has to^{be read into at the stage of} Sub-section (1) of Section^{3 of the Slum Act.}

¶155

1. Other provisions of the Slum^{Act may not have} much relevance to the^present dispute and^{thereforeare not} adverted to.

¶156

In J.V.Bhat (supra 1), Supreme Court was considering validity of three notifications issued under the Mysore Act besides the ulres of Sections 3,9, 12 and 16 of the said Act. One of the notihcations challenged was under Section 3 of the Mysore Act dated 17.11.1960 declaring the land in question as a slum area. In the above context, Supreme Court observed that a declaration made under Section 3 has far-reaching consequences. Once an area is as a slum area, the owners of every building therein Tdeclared would have to apply for registration of their buildings. No owner of a property in the area can erect any new building or

¶157

¶158

t I i

¶159

H(J & NZ-RJ W.A.No. I52 oJ'2O18 & W.l' No.10781 of 2O16

¶160

make any addition to or allcration in anl existing building without the previous permission which may be subject to suih restrictions or conditions as may be imposed by the competent authority. Besides, the buildings may be demolished followed by acquisition of land. In the circumstances, Supreme Court held that there can be no two opinions about the need to lrear the affected persons before declaring an area to be a slum area under Section 3 of the Mysore Act. While upholding the constitutionality of the impugned provisions, Supremc Court set aside the three notifications as bad in law in as much as the affected persons were not given arr opportunity of making representations against the notilications.

¶161

We have also perused provisions of Section 3 of the Mysore Act and we find that like in the SIum Act, there is no provision therein to put the affected person on notice and afford them a reasonable opportunity of hearing before declaring an area as a slum area. To that extent, learned Single Judge is right in holding that principles of natural

l \

ilcll & N'|I?J W.A.No.152 of 2O18^&' W.P.No.40781 of 2016

¶167

justice would have to be^{read into the provisions of Sub-} Section (1) of Section^{3and further holdingthat for not} affording^{reasonable opportunityof hearing to the affected} person, the impugned notification^{cannotbe legally sustained'}

¶168

We are in agreement^{with the views expressed by} the learned Single Judge^{that though the statute is silent,} nonetheless before issuing a^{r-rotificationunderSub-Section} (1) of Section 3 of the Slum Act, the affected^{person(s) or} interested person(s) should be put on notice^and heard.^Since there was no such notice and hearing, the^impugned notilication dated 28.O5.201 I cannot be sustained. It has been rightly interfered with by the learned Single Judge. Since the notification under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 is set aside, the notice issued under Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Slum Act cannot survive since it is dependent on the notilication under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3. However, it is the final direction of the learned Single Judge which we find problematic. Learned Single Judge has directed the respondents (appellants herein) forbearing them from

. ,11

I I

t7 I t('.t & N'tRl W.A.-\o. 152 of 2OlB 6; W.P.No.407U l oJ 201tt

¶173

interfering with the proprietarv rights of tl-re petitioner⁽¹ 'r respondent) over the subject land. In our opinion, such a direction is ivholly uncalled for and unwarranted. CI'rallenge in the writ petition \r/as to thc notification issued under^Sub- Section (1) of Section 3. TI.re adjudication^{was confined only} to validity of thc said notification.^{Thus learned Single Judge} has gone beyond the relief^{sought for} by the^{1'' respondentin} the s,rit petition.^Therefore such^{direction of the learned} Single Judge is set aside.

¶174

However, we are mindful^{of the fact that the Slum} Act is a beneficial^piece of^{legislation intendedto improvethe} living conditions of the slum dwellers^{and toeradicate} unhygienic, sanitary and squalid^{conditions from} neighbourhoods of urban areas which^{can be a source of} danger to public health.

¶175

Keeping the above in mind and^{also the} fact that the contesting parties a-re fu lly aware of the intent of the Government to declare the subject land as a slum area, we

¶176

¶177

¶178

IlC] & NTRJ W.A.No. 152 of 2018 & W.P.No.4O781 of 2016

¶179

are of the view that l.t respondent/',r,rit petitioner as well as respondent Nos.3 to 24 shall file their reply/obJection to such intent of the State before the District Collector, Hyderabad within a period of 30 days from today. Thereafter, the District Collector shall consider the objections filed and afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the 1sr respondent/writ petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 24. On conclusion of the above exercise, District Collector shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of trvo (O2) months from the date of submission of reply/objection by the parties.

¶180

This disposes of Writ Appeal No. 152 of 2O 18

¶181

Since we have upheld the order of the learned Single Judge in quashing the impugned notification dated 24.O5.2O71 under Section 3(l) of the Slum Act, the consequential notice dated 3 I . I O.2O f I issued by the District Collector, Hyderabad under Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Slum Act would be of no legal consequence. Resultantly, Writ Petition No.40781 of 2016 stands allowed for statistical purposes.

¶182

tI(.J & IViRJ W.A.No. 152 of 2O 18 & W.P.No.4O781 of 2016

¶183

¶184

¶185

'24. We make it clear that we have not expresse d an]

¶186

opir)ion on merit and all contentions are kept^open.

¶187

As a sequel, miscellaneous^{applicationspending,if}

¶188

any, in the Wr-it Appeal and the Writ^{Petition,shall stand}

¶189

ciosed. However, there shall^{be no orderas to costs}

¶190

SD/-I. NAGALAKSHMI DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶191

//TRUE COPY//

¶192

SECTION OFFICER

¶193

One fair copy to the HON'BLE SRl. CHIEF JUSTTCE UJJAL BHUYAN (For His Lordship's Kind Perusal)

¶194

AND

¶195

One fair copy to the HON'BLE SRl. JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJT (For His Lordship's Kind Perusal)

¶196

To,

¶197

10 L.R. Copies.

¶198

The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

¶199

The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad

¶200

The Additional Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Secunderabad.

¶201

The Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶202

The District Collector, Hyderabad District at Hyderabad.

¶203

The Tahsildar, Musheerabad Mandal, Hyderabad.

¶204

B. Two CCs to SRI T. SRIKANTH REDDY, GP for REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶205

One CC to M/s. BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES, Advocates [OPUC]

¶206

10.One CC to SRI K RAVINDER REDDY, Standing Counset for GHMC tOpUCl I 1 . One CC to SRI A. PRABHAKAR RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

¶207

12.One CC to SRI DURGA PRASAD, Advocate tOpUCl

¶208

13.One CC to SRt p. SRt HARSHA REDDY, Advocate iOpUCl

¶209

14.Two CD Copies.

¶210

MP \I .},,-

: I IiI

i I

HlGH COURT

--a -D{fS_D:0910212023 ---
,1:- i:ll,) ..,...'.,
[ 1 j: i 2fr?l

¶218

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶219

WRIT APPEAL NO. 152 OF 2018 AND WRIT PETITION NO.40781 OF 2016

¶220

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL^{NO.152OF 2018} AND ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION^{NO.40781OF 2016} WITHOUT COSTS

¶221

$: 5 ,>

State of T.S. v. Dr. Neelam Krishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of T.S. v. Dr. Neelam Krishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The District Judge, Mahabubnagar, Vs Syed Imaduddin

M/S. Polaris Software Lab Ltd. Hyd. Vs Prl. Secy. (Ct) Hyd and 2 Others

State Bank of Hyderabad Vs Dy Commr. of Income Tax Circle 3 (2)

Lifetime Wellness Rx International Ltd. Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre

Dinesh Kumar Tiwari Vs Ms Chitra Mishra, I.A.S

Morampudi Mani Vs The State of Telangana