Telangana High Court
State Of T.S. vs Dr. Neelam Krishna on 9 February, 2023
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, N.Tukaramji
* THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
+ WRIT APPEAL No.152 of 2018
% 09.02.2023
# Between:
State of T.S. & 2 others
Appellants
VERSUS
Dr. Neelam Krishna & 23 others
Respondents
! Counsel for Appellants : Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy,
learned Government Pleader
for Revenue
^ Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Vedula Venkata
Ramana, learned Senior
Counsel for respondent
No.1
: Mr. K.Ravinder Reddy,
learned Standing Counsel
for GHMC for respondent
No.2
: Mr. A.Prabhakar Rao,
learned counsel for
AND
2 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.152 of 2018 &
W.P.No.40781 of 2016
WRIT PETITION No.40781 of 2016
# Between:
Dr. Neelam Krishna
Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Telangana & 3 others
Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana,
learned Senior Counsel
^ Counsel for the respondents: Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy,
learned Government Pleader
for Revenue for respondent
: Mr. K.Ravinder Reddy,
learned Standing Counsel
for GHMC for respondent
No.4
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1 AIR 1975 SC 596
3 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.152 of 2018 &
W.P.No.40781 of 2016
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.152 of 2018
And
WRIT PETITION No.40781 of 2016
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
This order will dispose of Writ Appeal No.152 of 2018
and Writ Petition No.40781 of 2016.
2. We have heard Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy, learned
Government Pleader for Revenue representing the appellants
in W.A.No.152 of 2018 and the official respondents in
W.P.No.40781 of 2016. Also heard Mr. Vedula Venkata
Ramana, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1/writ
petitioner in W.A.No.152 of 2018 and the petitioner in
W.P.No.40781 of 2016. We have heard Mr. K.Ravinder Reddy,
learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal
Corporation (GHMC) for respondent No.2 in W.A.No.152 of
4 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.152 of 2018 &
W.P.No.40781 of 2016
2018 and respondent No.4 in W.P.No.40781 of 2016 and
Mr. A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to
3. Writ Appeal No.152 of 2018 is directed against the
judgment and order dated 16.10.2017 passed by the learned
Single Judge allowing Writ Petition No.17154 of 2011 filed by
the 1st respondent as the writ petitioner.
4. 1st respondent as the writ petitioner had filed
W.P.No.17154 of 2011 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 Slum 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 land') as a slum area.
5 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.152 of 2018 &
W.P.No.40781 of 2016
5. Before we advert to the notification dated
28.05.2011, we may mention that according to the 1st
respondent, he is one of the co-owners of the subject land.
There were 42 tenants in the constructed buildings. 1st
respondent had initiated eviction proceedings against them
under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and
Eviction) Control Act, 1960 and had obtained orders of
eviction. Out of the 42 tenants, 4 were evicted by due process
and 16 others had voluntarily vacated the premises.
Remaining tenants had earlier instituted W.P.No.18951 of
2010 before this Court seeking a direction to 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 of by this Court vide order dated 18.04.2011
directing the District Collector of Hyderabad and GHMC to
take a decision whether to acquire the subject land or not. It
was thereafter that the impugned notification dated
28.05.2011 was issued and published in the Andhra Pradesh
Gazette, which 1st respondent says he came to know on
6 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.152 of 2018 &
W.P.No.40781 of 2016
06.06.2011 when it was published in the newspapers. This
came to be challenged in W.P.No.17154 of 2011. During
pendency of the writ petition, appellants issued notice dated
31.10.2011 under Section 3(2) 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 31.10.2011 issued under Section 3(2) of the Slum Act.
This came to be challenged in Writ Petition No.40781 of 2016.
6. Writ Petition No.17154 of 2011 was contested by
the appellants by filing counter affidavit. Appellant No.3 in
the counter affidavit 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 notification under
Section 3(1) of the Slum Act was issued. GHMC also filed
7 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.152 of 2018 &
W.P.No.40781 of 2016
counter affidavit contending that impugned notification was
issued in accordance with law.
7. Learned Single Judge considered the provisions of
the Slum Act, more particularly Section 3 thereof and after
comparing the said provisions with the Mysore Slum Areas
(Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1958 (briefly referred to
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 pari materia. Referring to the decision of
the Supreme Court in Government of Mysore v. J.V.Bhat1,
learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that notice and
hearing are required to be given before issuance of a
notification under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Slum
Act. Learned Single Judge from the record found that no
prior notice was issued to the 1st respondent and he was not
heard before the impugned notification was issued. In the
circumstances, learned Single Judge set aside the impugned
notification dated 28.05.2011 further clarifying that the
1 AIR 1975 SC 596
8 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.152 of 2018 &
W.P.No.40781 of 2016
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 1st respondent
over the subject land.
8. In the hearing held on 03.02.2023, we had taken a
prima facie view that learned Single Judge was not justified in
setting aside the notification dated 28.05.2011 and had
observed that the matter may be remanded back to the
learned Single Judge for re-consideration and to be heard
along with W.P.No.40781 of 2016.
9. Learned Senior Counsel for the 1st 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 quasi-judicial authority
results in civil consequences upon an affected party,
9 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.152 of 2018 &
W.P.No.40781 of 2016
principles of natural justice are required to be followed.
Insofar the Slum Act is concerned, there is no statutory
exclusion of the principles of natural justice. Therefore,
Supreme Court in an identical situation in J.V.Bhat (supra 1)
has held that before declaring a land as a slum area, the
affected parties are required to be put on notice and heard.
This is what learned Single Judge has directed. As regards
the subsequent notice issued under Section 3(2) of the Slum
Act is concerned, the same would not be of any legal
consequence since the declaration of the subject land as slum
area has been set at naught by the learned Single Judge.
10. On the other hand, Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy, learned
Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the appellants
submits that there is no requirement of notice and hearing in
Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Slum Act. Notice and
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
be aggrieved because that is the stage when the land is
sought to be acquired. Prior to that stage, title and
10 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.152 of 2018 &
W.P.No.40781 of 2016
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 may be
followed and both the writ petitions may be heard together.
11. Mr. K.Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel
for GHMC has supported the contentions advanced by the
learned Government Pleader.
12. 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.
13. Submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties have received the due consideration of the Court.
11 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.152 of 2018 &
W.P.No.40781 of 2016
14. Before we proceed to examine the impugned
notification dated 28.05.2011, it would be apposite to advert
to the relevant provisions of the Slum Act. Preamble to the
Slum Act says that it is an act to provide for the acquisition of
lands declared as slum areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
There are number of slum areas in almost all towns of the
State which are a source of danger to public health and
sanitation. Under the existing laws, it has not been possible
to provide for the basic needs of sewerage, water-supply and
road and side-drains in these slums areas without causing
excessive financial strain on the owners of the lands affected.
To obviate such difficulty, it was found expedient first to
acquire the lands in those areas and thereafter to undertake
execution of work designed to improve those areas.
15. As per Section 2(f), 'slum area' has been defined to
mean any area declared to be a slum area under Sub-Section
(1) of Section 3. Section 3 deals with power of the
Government to acquire land. As per Sub-Section (1), where
the Government is satisfied that any area is or may be a
12 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.152 of 2018 &
W.P.No.40781 of 2016
source of danger to the public health, safety or convenience of
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 where 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 Sub-
Section (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 fit and proper. The
Explanation below the proviso clarifies that cause shown by
13 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.152 of 2018 &
W.P.No.40781 of 2016
the person interested would be both in respect of Sub-Section
(1) as well as Sub-Section (2). In other words, while cause is
being shown to a notice issued under Sub-Section (2) of
Section 3, the person interested may also object to declaration
of the land as a slum area under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3.
Sub-Section (3) says that once the notice is published in the
Gazette, the land shall vest absolutely in the Government free
from all encumbrances. In terms of Sub-Section (4), the
Government may authorize any authority or officer to exercise
all or any of the powers to be exercised under Section 3.
16. Objective of the Slum 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 view of the consequences which may follow, it
is necessary that the person interested would have to be put
14 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.152 of 2018 &
W.P.No.40781 of 2016
on notice and heard before the land is declared as 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.
16.1. Other provisions of the Slum Act may not have
much relevance to the present dispute and therefore are not
adverted to.
17. In J.V.Bhat (supra 1), Supreme Court was
considering validity of three notifications issued under the
Mysore Act besides the vires of Sections 3, 9, 12 and 16 of the
said Act. One of the notifications 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
declared as a slum area, the owners of every building therein
would have to apply for registration of their buildings. No
owner of a property in the area can erect any new building or
15 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.152 of 2018 &
W.P.No.40781 of 2016
make any addition to or alteration in any existing building
without the previous permission which may be subject to
such 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 hear 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, Supreme Court set aside the three
notifications as bad in law in as much as the affected persons
were not given an opportunity of making representations
against the notifications.
18. We have also perused provisions of Section 3 of
the Mysore Act and we find that like in the Slum 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
16 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.152 of 2018 &
W.P.No.40781 of 2016
justice would have to be read into the provisions of Sub-
Section (1) of Section 3 and further holding that for not
affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected
person, the impugned notification cannot be legally sustained.
19. We are in agreement with the views expressed by
the learned Single Judge that though the statute is silent,
nonetheless before issuing a notification under Sub-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
notification dated 28.05.2011 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
notification 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
17 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.152 of 2018 &
W.P.No.40781 of 2016
interfering with the proprietary rights of the petitioner (1st
respondent) over the subject land. In our opinion, such a
direction is wholly uncalled for and unwarranted. Challenge
in the writ petition was to the notification issued under Sub-
Section (1) of Section 3. The adjudication was confined only
to validity of the said notification. Thus learned Single Judge
has gone beyond the relief sought for by the 1st respondent in
the writ petition. Therefore such direction of the learned
Single Judge is set aside.
20. However, we are mindful of the fact that the Slum
Act is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to improve the
living conditions of the slum dwellers and to eradicate
unhygienic, sanitary and squalid conditions from
neighbourhoods of urban areas which can be a source of
danger to public health.
21. Keeping the above in mind and also the fact that
the contesting parties are fully aware of the intent of the
Government to declare the subject land as a slum area, we
18 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.152 of 2018 &
W.P.No.40781 of 2016
are of the view that 1st respondent/writ 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 1st 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 two (02) months
from the date of submission of reply/objection by the parties.
22. This disposes of Writ Appeal No.152 of 2018.
23. Since we have upheld the order of the learned
Single Judge in quashing the impugned notification dated
28.05.2011 under Section 3(1) of the Slum Act, the
consequential notice dated 31.10.2011 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.
19 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.152 of 2018 &
W.P.No.40781 of 2016
24. We make it clear that we have not expressed any
opinion on merit and all contentions are kept open.
25. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if
any, in the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition, shall stand
closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
_______________________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 09.02.2023
Note: L.R. copy to be marked.
(B/o.)
KL
