Karnataka High Court
Shobha W/O. Mohan Sabnis vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 October, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14067
WP No. 81050 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 81050 OF 2013 (GM-SLUM)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHOBHA W/O. MOHAN SABNIS ,
SINCE DECEASED HER LRS ARE
ALREADY ON RECORD ON PETITIONER NO.2 TO 4.
2. PRAKASH S/O. MOHAN SABNIS,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER,
R/O: 463, 2ND FLOOR, 1ST BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE,
R/BY HIS GPA HOLDER MR MOHAN
S/O. V MANKANI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. NO. T12, F BLOCK, GOLDEN ORCHID APTS,
10/8, LAVELLE ROAD, BANGALROE.
3. SMT. SWAPANA SABNIS W/O. MOHAN MANKANI
RAKESH S
HARIHAR AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER
Digitally signed by Deleted as per
RAKESH S HARIHAR
Location: High Court of
Karnataka Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.10.18 12:17:07
+0530
R/O. NO. T12, F BLOCK, GOLDEN ORCHID APTS, order dated
10/8, LAVELLE ROAD, BANGALROE 30.08.2024
R/BY HER GPA HOLDER MR MOHAN S/O. V MANKANI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. NO. T12,
F BLOCK, GOLDEN ORCHID APTS, 10/8,
LAVELLE ROAD, BANGALROE.
4. SMT. NAYANA SABNIS W/O. VISHNU PRABHU
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: PRACTITIONER,
R/O. VAISHNAVI, ARYA SAMAJ ROAD, MANGALORE.
ALL FOUR R/BY HER GPA HOLDER
MR MOHAN S/O. V MANKANI,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14067
WP No. 81050 of 2013
HC-KAR
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. NO. T12, F BLOCK, GOLDEN ORCHID APTS,
10/8, LAVELLE ROAD, BANGALROE.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHRIDHARPRABHU, A/W
SRI. SURESH N. KINI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DHARWAD.
2. THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, R/BY THE SECRETARY,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE.
3. THE OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL
COMMISSIONER, BELAGAV.
4. THE KARNATAKA SLUM BOARD,
R/BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BANGALORE.
5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
THE KARNATAKA SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD,
TOLL NAKA, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. RAVIRAJ C. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R5 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, ORDER DIRECTION
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE NO.150/98-99 DATED
31/01/1999 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AND PUBLISHED IN
KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 18/02/1999, PRODUCED
HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B. ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, ORDER, DIRECTION QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED NOTICE NO.150/98-99 DATED 29/12/1999
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AND PUBLISHED IN KARNATAKA
GAZETTE ON DATED 30/12/1999, PRODUCED HEREWITH AND
MARKED AS ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14067
WP No. 81050 of 2013
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in
question the notification dated 31.01.1999 declaring the
subject property to be a slum within the meaning of Section
3 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and
Clearance) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"
for short).
2. Heard Shri Shridharprabhu along with
Shri Suresh N.Kini appearing for the petitioners; Shri V.S.
Kalasurmath, learned HCGP appearing for respondent
Nos.1 to 3; and Shri Raviraj C.Patil, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.4.
3. The facts in brief germane are as follows:
4. It is the case of the petitioners that the names of
the petitioners were mutated to be the absolute owners.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14067
HC-KAR
When things stood thus, respondent No.3 issued a
notification dated 31.01.1999, which was published in the
gazette on 18.02.1999 declaring a particular property to be
a slum invoking its power under Section 3 of the Act.
Pursuant to the said declaration, other issues that are
narrated in the petition would not become relevant for
consideration of the issue in the lis.
5. The issue lies in a narrow compass as to whether
declaration of a slum under Section 3 of the Act would
require prior opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved. The
issue need not detain this Court for longer delve deep into
the matter. The Apex Court interpreting both the Mysore
Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1958 and
the said Act has clearly held that aggrieved should be heard
not en masse but individually.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14067
HC-KAR
6. The Apex Court in the GOVERNMENT OF
MYSORE AND OTHERS VS. J.V. BHAT AND OTHERS1
has held as follows:
17. As pointed out by the High Court, no appeal
is provided against the declaration made under
Sections 3 and 9. Those declarations have far-
reaching consequences. While acting under Sections
3 and 9 the possibility of arbitrary decisions cannot
be ruled out. It must also be borne in mind that
most of the owners of properties in the slum areas
are likely to be poor persons with slender means.
On the other hand it may also be necessary to bear
in mind that quite often the persons who live in the
slums may not be owners of the property but all the
slum area might be owned by a rich person. In such
cases the residents of slums themselves might be
interested in the slums being declared as slums.
Once an area is declared as a slum area the owners of
every building therein have to apply for registration of
their buildings. No owner of a property in the area can
erect any new building or make any addition to, or
alteration in any existing building without previous
permission which may be subject to such restrictions or
conditions as may be imposed by the competent
authority. The authority concerned may also call upon the
owners to carry out works of improvement and if such a
direction is not complied with the authority may itself
execute the works of improvement and recover the cost
from him. Under Section 10 the owners of the buildings
may be asked to vacate and demolish them and on failure
to do so the buildings may be demolished and the cost of
demolition recovered from the owners.
18. A notification under Section 9 enables an area to
be declared a clearance area on the ground that the most
satisfactory method of dealing with the conditions in the
area is the demolition of all the buildings in the area. But
even in a slum area there may be buildings which may
not have to be pulled down and they may be in quite good
(1975) 1 SCC 110
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14067
HC-KAR
condition. The proviso to sub-section (1) provides for such
a contingency but if there is no provision for hearing the
affected person he cannot bring to the notice of the
concerned authority that his building is not unfit for
human habitation or dangerous or injurious to health, and
such person would go unheard. There can be no two
opinions about the need to hear the affected
persons before declaring an area to be a slum area
under Section 3, or an area as a clearance area
under Section 9 or before taking action under
Section 10. All these difficulties will be removed if
the affected persons are given an opportunity to be
heard in respect of the action proposed.
(Emphasis supplied)
7. A little later to the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of J.V. BHAT (SUPRA), the Division Bench of this
Court in the judgment rendered in ANDANOOR
SHIVALINGAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA2 has held
as follows:
"3. The Petitioner has asserted in paragraph 5 of Writ
Petition that he has not been given any show cause notice
before the land was declared as slum area. He has stated
that as far reaching consequences affecting his rights will
take place consequent upon the declaration made by the
impugned notification, the authorities were required to
issue a show cause nonce as held by this Court
in Thipperudrappa v. State. [1976 (1) K.L.J. 417.] Our
attention was drawn by Sri Minajigi, Learned Counsel for
the Petitioner, that it has been ruled in the aforesaid
decision that though Section 3 does not, in express terms,
contemplate notice and opportunity being given to the
persons likely to be affected, such a requirement has to
be read into the statutory provision, having regard to the
ILR 1985 KAR 936
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14067
HC-KAR
principles of natural justice. There cannot, therefore, be
any doubt having regard to the ruling of this Court that
before issuing a notification under Section 3(1) of the Act,
the authorities are required to issue notice to the persons
likely to be affected and to give him an opportunity of
showing cause in the matter. Sri Chandan Gowdar,
however, takes the stand that the notification published in
the Gazette on the 4th November, 1976 as per Exhibit 'A',
is sufficient compliance with this requirement of principles
of natural justice as notice has been published in the
Gazette proposing to issue a notification in respect of the
lands notified therein as slum area and inviting
representations from persons likely to be affected by such
notification. Sri Minajigi, Learned Counsel for the
Petitioner, submitted that the notice of the type issued in
this case by publication in the Official Gazette, is not final
and sufficient notice contemplated by law. He invited our
attention to Section 50 of the Act, which reads as follows:
"50. Service of notices and orders.--
(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act and
subject to the provisions of this Section and of
any rules made in this behalf, every notice
issued or order made under this Act shall.--
(a) in the case of any notice or order of a
general nature or affecting a class of
persons, be published in the Official Gazette;
(b) in the case of any notice or order affecting
an individual, corporation or firm be served
in the manner provided for the service of
summons in rule 2 of Order XXIX or rule 3 of
Order XXX, as the case may be, in the First
Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (Central Act V. of 1908), and
(c) in the case of any notice or order affecting
an individual person (not being a corporation
or firm) be served on such person,-
(i) by delivering or tendering it to that
person; or
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14067
HC-KAR
(ii) if it cannot be so delivered or tendered
by delivering or tendering to the Head of
the office, in which such person is
employed, or to any adult male servant of
such person, or to any adult male
member of the family of such person, or
by affixing a copy thereof on the outer
door or on some conspicuous part of the
premises in which that person is known to
have last resided or carried on business
or personally worked for gain; or
(iii) failing service by any of the means
aforesaid, by post or by affixing a copy of
the said notice or order on some
conspicuous part of the land or building to
which it relates.
(2) Where the notice or order cannot be served
without undue delay, due to any dispute in the
ownership of the land or building or due to the
person to whom the notice or order is intended
being not readily traceable, the notice or order
may be served by publishing it in the Official
Gazette, and where possible by affixing a copy
thereof on some conspicuous part of the land or
building to which it relates."
It is clear from these statutory provisions of Section 50 of
the Act that the notice to the individual person has to be
issued by following the procedure prescribed by Section
50(1)(c) of the Act. It is not the case of the Respondent
that the notice as contemplated by this provision was
issued. It is no doubt true that sub-section (2) of Section
50 contemplates notice being issued by publishing the
same in the Official Gazette. But this can be done if the
conditions specified in sub-section (2) of Section 50 are
satisfied. The conditions to be satisfied are:
that notice or order cannot be served without
undue delay;
1. due to any dispute in the ownership of the land
or building or
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14067
HC-KAR
2. due to the person to whom the notice or order is
intended being not readily traceable.
It is only if either of these conditions is satisfied that the
authorities can resort to publication of notice in the
Gazette and not otherwise. It is not pleaded that the
conditions specified in sub-Section (2) of Section 50 are
satisfied in this case. Hence, it is clear that notice as
required under Section 50(1)(c) of the Act, was required
to be issued. As that has not been done, this Writ Petition
is entitled to succeed.
For the reasons stated above, this Writ Petition is
allowed and the impugned notification Exhibit 'B' dated
10-12-1976 published in the Gazette on the 10th of
January, 1977, is quashed in so far as it pertains to serial
No. 6 in respect of Survey No. 119 belonging to the
appellant, without prejudice to the rights of the
authorities, to take appropriate action in accordance with
law."
8. Later the Apex Court in the case of SCHEDULED
CASTE AND WEAKER SECTION WELFARE
ASSOCIATION (REGD.) AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS3 has followed its earlier
judgment in the case of J.V. BHAT (supra) and held as
follows:
15. It is one of the fundamental rules of our
constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected
against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State
or its officers. If there is power to decide and
determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act
judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power
and the rule of natural justice operates in areas not
(1991) 2 SCC 60
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14067
HC-KAR
covered by any law validly made. What particular
rule of natural justice should apply to a given case
must depend to an extent on the facts and
circumstances of that case, the framework of the
law under which the enquiry is held and the body of
persons appointed for that purpose. It is only where
there is nothing in the statute to actually prohibit
the giving of an opportunity to be heard, but on the
other hand, the nature of the statutory duty
imposed itself necessarily implied an obligation to
hear before deciding, that the audi alteram
partem rule could be imported. Thus in applying the
test, to the provisions of the earlier Actthe Mysore Slum
Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1958, this Court
held in Government of Mysore v. J.V. Bhat [(1975) 1 SCC
110 : (1975) 2 SCR 407] , thus: (SCC p. 119, para 18)
"There can be no two opinions about the need to
hear the affected persons before declaring an area to
be a slum area under Section 3, or an area as a
clearance area under Section 9 or before taking action
under Section 10. All these difficulties will be removed
if the affected person are given an opportunity to be
heard in respect of the action proposed."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. In the light of the issue standing answered as to
whether there should be hearing of the aggrieved by a
notification issued under Section 3 of the Act and the
admitted fact that there was no opportunity of hearing at all
in the case at hand rendered to these petitioners, the
petition deserves to succeed with the obliteration of the
notification so issued under Section 3 of the Act, only to
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14067
HC-KAR
provide an opportunity of hearing for these petitioners and
then action to be taken in accordance with law, if needed.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned notices dated 31.01.1999
and 29.12.1999 issued by respondent No.3
vide Annexures-B and C respectively stands
quashed.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of
the concerned authority under the Act to
hear these petitioners and then pass
necessary orders in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
VNP / CT-ASC
