IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24783 of 1998 & WRIT PETITION NO : 4550 of 2005 Between: Smt. T.Kanchana, W/o Subash Chandra Bose, R/o H.No.16-10-273/1, Opp. Race Course Road, Adjacent to Registration Office, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of A.P., Rep by its Principal Secretary, M.A. & U.D.Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner of Municipal Corpt. of Hyderabad, M.C.H., Tank Bund, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or orders or a direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the A.P. Gazette No.5, dt.29.1.97 at page 97 wherein it is declared that the property of the petitioner as Slum area so far as the property of the petitioner is concerned and without notifying the Survey Number and no opportunity nor notice issued to the petitioner herein, and quash the same by declaring it as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, much less without jurisdiction and contrary to the Slum Act as well as violative of principles of natural justice and consequently declaring the land of the petitioner as not affected by the Notification under A.P. Gazette No.5, dt.29.1.97 and it is a private property of the petitioner and consequently quash the notification of the A.P. Gazette Notification No.16, dt.18.4.85 at Page 341 Part I issued by the 2nd petitioner herein as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders. WRIT PETITION NO : 4550 of 2005 Between: Smt. T. Kanchana, W/o. Subhash Chandra Bose, R/o. H.No.16-10-273/1, Opp: Race Course road, Adjacent to Registration Office, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Govt of A.P., rep. by its Pl.Secretary, MA.&UD, Dept., Secretarait, Hdyerabad. 2 Commissioner of Municipal Corporationof Hyderabad, M.C.H., Tank Bund, hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Issue a writ or order or orders or a direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the A.P. Gazette No.5, dt. 29.1.1987 at page 97 wherein it is declared that the property of the petitioner as Slum area so far as the property of the petitioner is concerned and without notifying the Survey Number and no opportunity nor notice issued to the petitioner herein, and setaside same by declaring it as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, much less without jurisdiction and contrary to the slum Act as well as violative of principles of natural justice and consequently declaring the land of the petitioner as not affected by the Notification under A.P. Gazette No.5, dt. 29.1.1987 and it is a private property of the petitioner and consequently set aside the notification of the A.P. Gazette Notification No.16, dt. 18.4.1985 at page 341 Part I issued by the second respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.RAJA RAAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.24783 of 1998 and W.P.No.4550 of 2005 COMMON ORDER: The father of the petitioner was a member of M/s. Ravi Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Hyderabad. The society acquired land in Survey Nos.4,5 and part of Survey No.3 of Musheeerabad Revenue Village. The land was divided into plots. Father of the petitioner was allotted plot No.1 admeasuring 439 square yards. Similarly, paternal uncle of the petitioner was also allotted plot No.2 admeasuring 462 square yards. The father and uncle of the petitioner are said to have gifted the said plots in her favour through registered documents. The petitioner intended to make construction on the said plots and submitted an application to the Municipal Corporation. At that time, she was informed that the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation - second respondent herein published notifications under Section 3 (1) and (2) of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956 (for short “the Act”) in the A.P. Gazette, dated 18.4.1985 and 29.1.1987 respectively. The petitioner challenges the notifications stating inter alia that she has not been issued notice before the said notifications were published. She contends that the proviso to Section 3 mandates that the owner of the property, proposed to be acquired under the Act, was to be put on notice before the notifications are published and such a course was not adopted in the instant case. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit. The circumstances that led to publication of notifications in respect of the land of the petitioner and other areas, are mentioned. It is stated that the notifications were published only on being satisfied with the circumstances provided under the Act exist. It is also stated that the Secretary of the Housing Society was issued notice before the notifications were published. Sri M.V.Rajaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the publication of notifications under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the Act would bring about devastating consequences for a owner of the land and before such step is taken, the owner is entitled to be put on notice. He contends that the effort of the respondents was to declare the erstwhile tank to slum and in the process, the land of the petitioner, which is a contiguous place, facing the main road was also included in the notifications. The learned standing counsel for the Municipal Corporation on the other hand submits that the adequate survey was conducted before the notifications were issued and the proviso is complied with by issuing notice to the Secretary of the Society. The Act confers extraordinary powers upon the concerned authorities to declare an area as slum. With the issuance of the successive notices under the Act, the land vests in the Government and the owner would be deprived of the same. The compensation paid for it is also paltry. For all practical purpose, it brings about expropriation of private property. Irrespective of the object underlying in the Act, the rights of a private individual cannot be permitted to be defeated. Recognizing the intensity of the encroachment into rights of the owners of the property, the legislature provided for issuance of notice to the owner of the property, which is sought to be proceeded against. The Proviso to Section 3 of the Act, reads as under: “Provided that, before publishing such notice, the Government shall call upon the owner of, 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 if any shown by any person interested in the land, the Government may pass such orders as they deem fit.” The importance of the proviso can be guessed from the fact that though publication of notifications in the Gazette is treated as a deemed notice to all the concerned, separate exercise is required to be undertaken. In the instant case, the petitioner had categorically stated that neither herself nor her father and uncle were issued notices before notifications were published. The respondents tried to meet this ground by stating that a notice, as contemplated in the proviso issued to the Secretary of the Society. It has already been mentioned that the Society allotted plots and executed sale deeds way back in the year 1974 and the gift deeds in turn executed in favour of the petitioner in the year 1989. The notifications came to be issued more than a decade after the society executed sale deeds in favour of its members. Therefore, the service of notice on the Secretary of the Society cannot be said to be a compliance. By the time the notifications were published, the father and uncle of the petitioner are the absolute owners of the plots. Though the petitioner cannot expect a notice, the respondents were under obligation to serve notice on the owners of the property. Admittedly, no such notice was issued to the father and uncle of the petitioner. It hardly needs any emphasis that provisions of an enactment like the present Act have to be interpreted strictly and the benefit of any non-compliance must go to the affected citizens. Therefore, the writ petitions are allowed. Consequently, the notification issued under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act in so far as it relates to the land of the petitioner, is set-aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 03.12.2008 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JGK}