MYSORE GOVT. v. J. V. BHAT

407 GOVERNM'BNT OF MYSORE & ORS. _v._ J. V. BHAT, ETC. ETC. _October_ l 4, 1974 B [P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, M. H. BEG AND A. ALAGl.RISWAMI, JJ.] _Natural justice-Mysore_ _Slum_ _Areas_ _(Improvement_ _and_ _Clearance)_ _Act_ _1958-_ _Vol/d/ty_ _of the_ _11ot/ficat/011s_ _Issued_ _under_ _the_ _Act-Principles_ _of Natural_ _iust/ce-_ _Whetlrer_ _can_ _be_ _Implied when_ _tire_ _statute_ _Is_ _silent-Natural justice for_ _sub/ect/l'e_ _sails·_ _faction_ _of an_ _adm/11/strat/l'e_ _bodr._ ##### c 1,'he,Provisions .of ~ctions. 3., _9,_ 12 and _15_ of the Act were challenged as un. cons11tut1onal for v1olatmg prmc1ples of natural justice. Section 3(1) reads as under : "(I). where the competent authority upon report from any of its officers or other information in its possession is satisfied that . (a) the buildings in any area, used· or intended to be used for human habi· ta ti on- . . 0 (i) are in any respect unfit for human habitation; or (ii) are, by reason of dilapidation, overcrowding, faulty arrangement or desi11n, narrowness of fnulty arrangement of streets, lack of ventilation, light, or sanitation facilitles 1 or anr, combination of these factors, detrimtntal to safety, health or morals; it may, oy no11ficatlon In the Official Gazette, declare such area to be a slum arca E F G H Scctlon 9(1) reads as under : "(I) where the competent authority upon a report from any of Its officers or other Information in Its possession Is satisfied as respects any slum area that the most satisfactory method of dealing with the conditions in the area Is the demolition of all the buildings in the area the authority shall by ·an order notified in the official Gazette, declare the area to be a clearance area, that is to say, an area to be cleared of all buildings in actordancc with the provisions of this Act : Provided that any building in the area which is not unfit for human habitation or dangerous or injurious to health may be excluded from the declaration if the . auti)ority considers it necessary." Section l2 empowers the State Government to clear land surrounded by any such slum· area or clearance area or any other/land in any locality. Section _1 S_ prescribes the basis for determination of compensation for the land acquired. No appeal is provided against the declarations made under secs. 3 and _9._ The validity of the Notifications made under the provisions of sections 3, 9 and 12 were also challenged. The High Court of Mysore struck down sections 3 and 9 as violative of Art. 19(1)(f) and section 12(l)(b) as violative of Art. 14. It did not deal with sectiot. 15. It was contended before this Court that provisions of sections 3, 9, 12 and 15 arc invalid for violating the principles of natural justice. It was also contended that the notifications issued under the Act were invalid. It was also contended that the declarations under sections 3 and 9 have far-reaching consequences. That while acting under sections 3 and 9 the possibility of arbitrary decisions cannot be ruled out and no app:al is provided against the declarations made under sections 3 and 9. 408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1975] 2 s.c.R. HELD : There are two possible approaches to the question. One is to hold that A B #### c D E th~ provisions of the statute are themselves unconstitutional because they do not pro· vide a reasonable opportunity to the affectedpa~ties to be heard. The other is to hold that as there is nothing in the statutory provisions which debar the application of the principles of natural justiee while the authorities exercise the statutory powers under the Act and as the principles of natural justice would apply unless the statutory pro· visions point to the contrary the statutory provisions themselves are not unconstitu· tional though the notlficati1ms is11ued under them may be struck down if the authorities co~cerned do not observ1: the princiJ?les of natural justice. As there is a pm:in)tion of clnititution11ity of statutes it is the latter course that appears to us to be the proper approach. We think that the duty to hear those whose dwellings are to be conclemned becomes imperative before deciding to demolish their particular buildings although no quasi-judicial trial was called for. Ali that was necessary was to hear objections, checked by spot inspections where needed, before taking a decision. There can be no two opinion 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 the difficulties would be removed if the affected partir,s are given an opportunity to be heard in respect of th1: action proposed. Section 12(1)(b) which em· powers the authority to acuire any other land in any locality does not suffer from any constitutional defect. By its very nature, a slum area is likely to be over-crowded and in redeveloping it, it may b1: necessary to acquire other lands. The power under section 12(1)(b) is rela.table to the purpose of slum clearance itself. [409 A-D, 41~ _B·F:_ 417B] The Act is ' valid but the three notifications issued under the Act are bad as the affected persons were not given an opportunity of making representations against them. The Act is ' valid but the three notifications issued under the Act are bad as the affected persons were not given an opportunity of making representations against them. C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals· Nos. 1736 to 1740' of 1967. From the Judgment & Order dated the 9th October, 1969 of the Mysore High Court in W.P. Nos. 1249, 1260, 1432, 2206 and 2271 of 1963. _B._ _R. L._ _Iyengar_ and _M._ _Veerappa,_ for the appellants. _H._ _B._ _Datar_ and _R._ _B._ _Datar,_ for the respondents. (in C.A. Nos. 1736 & 1740/67)~ _M._ _C._ _Bhandare_ and _R._ _B._ _Datar,_ for respondent (in C. A. No. 1739/67). F The Judgment oftbe Court. was delivered by ALAGIRISWAMI, J.-These five appeals arise out of five writ petitions fifod before the High Court of Mysore questioning three notifications issued under the Mysore Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1958. The notifications were (1) a ceclaration under section 3 of the Act, dated 17-11-1960, (2) a declaration under section 9 of the G Act, dated 20-4-1961, and (3) a notification by the Government dated 20-12-1962 u.nder section 12 by which certain lands were to be acquired under the Act. The provisions of section 3, 9, 12 and 16 were also impugned as unconstitu~fonal. The High Court struck down sections 3 and 9 as violating Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution and section 12(1) (b) as violating Article 14. It did not consider it necessary to c<>n· sider fhe constitutional validity of section 15. It, however, held that JI the three nqtifications above referred to were not unc.onstitutional because in exercising their functions under sections 3, 9 and 12 the .authorities concerned were not exercising a quasi~judicial power. A B ###### c D E F G H MYSORE GOVT. _v,_ J, V. BHAT _(AlagiriSWtJ'mi,_ /.) 409 But the result of striking down the section of the Act above referred to was that the notifications also fell along with them. The State o~ Mysore has filed these appeals under certificate granted by the High Court. There are two possible approaches to this question. One is to hold that the provisions of the statute are themselves unconsti· tutional because they do not provide a reasonable opportunity for the ~ffacted parties to be.~eard; t~e oth~r is to hold that as there is nothing in the statutory provJS1ons which debar the application of the principles of natural justice while the authorities exercise the statutory powers) under the Act, and as the principles of natural justice would apply unle~s the statutory provisions point to the contrary the statutory : provisions themselves are not unconstitutional though the notifications issued under them may be struck down if the authorities concerned do not observe the principles of natural justice while exercising their statutory powers. As there is a presumption of constitutionality of statutes unless contrary is established it is the latter course that appears to us to be the proper approach. This Court has made considerable advances in recent years in its attitude towards the question of the application of the principles of natural justice. The High Court referred to the decisions in _Cooper_ v. _The Board of Works for the Wandsworth District_ [14CB (NS) 180] _King_ _v. The Electricity Commissioners_ [1924(1) KB 171] as wellas _Nakkuda_ _A:'i_ v. _M.F.De_ _S._ _Jayµratne_ (1951 AC 66), as also to the decision of this Court in _Province_ _of Bombay_ v. _Khusha_ _[1]_ _das_ _S._ _Advani_ (AIR 1950 SC 222). It referred to the decision in _Ridge_ v. _Ba_ _[1]_ _dwin_ [1963 (2) All E.R. 66] and considered that it had considerably shaken the foundations of _King_ v. _The Electricity Commissioners_ (supra). It noticed the decision of this Court in _Board of High_ _School_ & Interm~diate _Education_ _U.P._ _Allahabad_ v. _Ghanshyam_ _Das_ _Gupta_ (AIR 1962 SC 1110). It did not however refer to the decision of this Court in _State_ _of Orissa_ v. _Dr._ _(Miss)_ _Binapani_ _Dei_ & _Ors._ [1967(2) SCR 625] nor the decision in _A.K._ _Kraipak_ v. _Union_ [1970(1) SCR 457] as they were subsequent decisions of this Court. In _Binapani .Dei' s case_ this Court held: "The rule that a party to whose prejudice an order is intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing applies alike to judicial tribunals and bodies of persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequences. It is one of the fundamental rules of our ·constitutional Set-up that every citizen is protec!eP against exercise of arbitray authority by the State or its officers. Duty to act judicially would therefore arise from the very nature of the function intended to be performed, it need not be superaddcd. 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. !f the essentia!s of justice be igno~ed and ~n order to. the prejudice of a person ts made, the order is a nulhty. That 1s a basic concept of the rule of law and importance thereof transcends the significance of a decision in any particular case.'' 410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1975] 2 S.C' .• R. In. _!f.ra'pak's_ _case_ it was held: "The rules of natural justice operate in areas not covered by any law validly made, that fr, they do not supplant the law of the l~nd but supplement it. They are not embodied rules and their E:im is to secure justice or to p1revent miscarriage of justice. If that is their pu1rpose there is no reason why they should not be mitde applicable to administrative pror.eedings also, especially when it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial ones., and an unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have a more far-r6aching effect than a decision in a quasi-judicial enquiry." - It is further observed : "The concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to ?. given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which th0 enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or thP. bJdy of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is made befor1~ a court that some principle cf natural j(lstice had been contravened, the court has to decide wh0thi.:r the observance of that rule was necessary for a just de<:ision on the facts of that case. The rule that enquiries must be held in good faith and without bias, and not arbitrarily or unreasonably, is now included among the principles of natural justic·~ ." This Court also pointed! out : "The dividing line between an administrative power and a quasijucCial power is quite thin and is...being gradually obliterated. For determining whether a .Power is an administrative power or· a quasi-judicial power one has to look to the nature of the power conferred, the person or persons on whom it is conferred, the fram~work of the Jaw conferring that power, the consequencc:s ensuring from the exercise of that power and the manner in which that powc)r is expected to be exercised. . . . . . In recent yeai:s the concept of quasi-judicial power has been undergoing a radical change. What was considered as an administrative power some years back is now being considered as a quasi.judicial power." It also observed: "With the increase of the power of the administrative bodies it has be.come necessary to provide guidelines for the just exercise of their power. To prevent the abuse of that power and to see that it does not become a 1qew despotism, Courts are gradually evolving t~e principles to be observed while exercising such powers. In matters like these, public good is not advanced by a rigid adherence to precedents. New problems call for new solutions. It is neither possible nor desirable to fix the limits of a quasi. judicial power.'' A B ##### c D E F G H A B ##### c D F F G H MYSORE GOVT. _v._ J, v. BHAT _(Alagirjswami,_ /.) 411 The _audi a.'teram part em_ rule was hold to be applicable by implication, to a case of deprivation of a right in rroperty in _Daud Ahmed_ v. _District_ _Magistrate_ _Allahabad_ & _Ors._ (AIR 1972 SC 896 & 899) where this Court held: "It is the nature of the power and the circumstances and conditions under which it is exercised that will occasion the invocation of the principle of natural justice. Deprivation of property affects rights of a person. If under the Requisition Act the petitioner was to be deprived of the occupation of the premises the District Magistrate had to hold an enquiry in order .to arrive at an opinion that there existed alternative accommodati9n for' the petitioner or the District Magistrate was to provide 2.Iternativc accommodation." The. Mysore High Court, in the judgmllnt under appeal, Sllems to have been of opinion that the principle laid down in _Cooper_ v. _The Board_ _of Works_ _for_ _the Wandsworth_ _District_ (supra) was departed . from in _King_ v. _The_ _E'ectricity_ _Comm.;ssioners_ (supra) and by tht' Privy Council in _Nakkuda_ _Ali_ v. _M._ _F._ _De_ _S._ _Jayaratne_ (supra). The _Electricity Commissioners'_ _case_ was followed by this Court in _Province_ _of Bombay_ v. _Khusha'das_ _S._ _Advani_ (suprn). The High Court's view seems to have brcn that this line of reasoning prevented tho Court from inferring any procedure apart from that laid down in the statute. It seemed to have been of opinion that only what was laid down in tho Constitution · is the Constitutional. law of the 'land. This is clear from tho following passage in the judgment under appeal: "The principles of natural justice rcccgnised irt this country arc largely •if not wholly' moulded by thtr decisions of tho English Courts. In. this i:ountry, as in England, though the principles of natural justice are. of utmost importance in the administration of justice, they do not form part of tho Constitutional law of our country except probably when we consider cases falling under Article 311 of the Constitution. · Som& of our statutes embcdy those principles but largely they are th~ prcduct of judicial decisions. Those principles do not over-ride specific p-rovisions contained in any s,tatute unless the same cc.mes into conflict with any of the provisions in th~ Constitution." We may point out that, in holding the impugned pro\'ision void for contravention of Art. 19(1)(f) of the Con~titution, the High Court itself relied on a principle of natural justicr inasmuch as it held that a procedure providing for due hearing to the party affected before a building was condemned 'to be demolished was not provided in the impugqed Act. In other words, the High Court itself was treating rules of natural justice as part of requirements of our Constitutional law although they are not specifically conferred upon citizens under a separate heading: We think that the _Electricity_ _Commissioners'_ _case_ (supra) which. was followed by this Court in _Khushaldas_ _S._ _AdVani's_ _case_ (supra), was not really a departure _from_ the general principle laid dcwn in 412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1975] 2 S.C .. R. _Cooper_ v. _Jlhe_ _Board_ _of Works_ _for_ _the_ _Wandsworth_ _District_ (supra), but, it was an attempt to formulate the conditions under which the general principle laid down thereby Erle, C.J., who quoted the Biblical story of how even Gc.d Himself he:d given Adam an opportunity of answering why he had eate:n the forbidden fruit before expelling him from paradise, was applicable in the circumstances of an increasingly complex economic and social order whose problems compelled the emergence of the welfare socialistic State with its man'y organs armed with extensive: powers. Courts attempted, .in the interests of !justice, where its imperative demands W(;te not met, to c:>ntrol adrrlinistrative action by assimilating it to judicial action over which Couris could exercise supervision. In later cases, emphasis was more on the needs of justice and fairness rather than upon the distinction b~twJ~n th} judicial and administrative action. Administrative action had, however, to be giv.en free scope within its legitimate sphere without jeopardizing rights of individuals affected. Policies and schemes - framed under statutory prov;sions, which affected rights of individuals could impose th1: obligations upon the authorities taking what w~re essentially administrative decisions at points at which they begin to impinge on specific individual rights. It is only where there is n')thing in. the statutt: to actually prohibit the giving of an opportunity to be heard~ but, on the other hand, the nature of the statutory duty imp)Sed its¢lf necessarily implied an obligation to hear before deciding that the _"audi_ _alteram_ _partem"_ rule could be imported. The nature of the hearing would, of course, vary according to the nature of the function an,d what its just and fair r.xercise required in the context of rights affected. We must, therefore, examine the nature of functions imposed by ~tatute and the requirements they are designed to meet in applying the tests stated above. We th.ink that the duty to hear those whose dwellings are to be condemned be<;omcs imperative before deciding to demolish their particular buildings although we do not think that any quasi-judicial trial was ·c~.lled for. All that was necessary was to hear objections, checked by spot inspections, where needed, before taking a decision. "I:his would have met with the requirements of natural justice in such ca'ses where emergent action may. sometimes be very nec..:ssary. We may point out that, in cases of demolition orciers, pursuant to ~chemes framed under the Housing Act in England, the duty to hear before making them was held by the Court to be implied. The earliest ofthrse cases was _Cooper_ v. _The_ _Boatd of Works_ _for Wandsworth District._ These duties are now imposed by statute (see Sectio\1s 16 and 20 of Housing Act, 1967). Before proceeding to deal wit.h the questions that arise it ii nec<:·srnry to set out the relevant statutr·ry provisions. Sectio113 provides for dei:larati,•n of slum areo~. Tl reads : A B ###### c D E F G "(!) Where the comp~tcnt amlwrity upon rcp11rt from any of its officers or other informati0n in its possession is satisfied that-- H (a) any area is or may become a source of danger to the public health, safety or conv.:nience {)f residents in that area or in its .A B ##### c D E F G H MYSORE GOVT. _v._ J. v. BHAT _(Alagiriswaml,_ I.) 413" neighbourhoc~. by reason of the area being lc.wlying, imanitary, squalid or otherwise, or (b) the bilildings in any area, used or intended to be urnd for human·. habitation~ . (i) are in any respect unfit forhuman habitatic n; or (ii) are, by reason of dilapidation, overcr0wding, faulty arrangement ·or design, narrowness or faulty arrangement of streets, lack of ventilation, light, or sanitation facilities, or any combination of these factcrs, cletrin:ental to ·safety,. health or morals; it may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare rnch are:a to tea slum area(2) In determining whether a building is unfit for hurr.an habitation for the purposes of this Act, 1ega1d ~hall tc htd to its ccndition in respect of the following matters, that is to any ( a) repair; (b) stability; (c) freedom from damp; ( d) natural light and air; (e) water supply; (f) drainage and sanitary conveniences; (g) facilities for storage, p1c,paration ar.d cccking of focd· and for the disposal of waste water; and the building shall be deemed to be unfit as aforesaid if and· only if it is so far defective in one or more of the rn:.d matters that it is not reasonably suitable for occupat'on in that ccniditic·ns. •r Once an area is declared as a slum area, the owner of every building in that area has to apply to the cc.mpetent authority as 1cquircd by section 3-A(l) of the Act for the registration cf the building cwncd by him in that area and also furnished to the said authc·rity rnch particulars as may be required by it. (ii) in respect of any area declared as a slum area ur.der section 3 after the commencement of th. e said Act, sub~cquent to the date _o(_ declaration of such area as a slum area, erect any new building in such slum area, or make any addition to or any alteration in any building already existir.g c n the ~aid date in such sluin area, except with the previous pumis· sion iri writing · of the competent authorit~ P.r.d rnbject to such restrictions or conditions as may be 1mpc~cd l:y the said authority." Sect.ion 3-B lays down: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force; no.person shall 3-B lays down: "Notwithstanding anything contained in in force; no.person shall . # • • • . "' -414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1975] 2 S.C.R· Section 9 gives power to declare any slum area. to be a clearance ;area. It reads : "(!) Where the comp~t.ent authority upon a report from a11y of its officers or other information in its possession is satisfied as respects arty slum area that the most satisfactory methcd of dealing with the conditions in the area is the demolition of all the buildings in the area, the authority shall by an order notified in the offic:ial Gazette, declare: the area to be a clearance area, that is to say, an_ area to be cleared of all buildings in accordance with the provh:ions of this Act : Provided that any building in the area which is not unfit ·for human habitation or dangerous or injurious to health may be ·excluded from the declarahon if the authority cc-nsiders it :necessary. (2) The' competent authority shall forthwith transmit to ·the State. Government a copy of the declaration under this ·section together with a statement of the number of persons who on a date specified in the statement were occupying buildings comprised in the clearance area." S!:ction 12 gives power to the: State Government to acquire land. It .reads : "(!) Where on any re:presentation from the competent authority it appears to the State Government that, in order to enable the authority to execute any work of improvement in relation tel any building in a slum area or to form or widen lanes and roads therein or to re-develop any clearance area, or to reha bilitate slµm dwellers it is necessary to acquire-- (a) any land within, adjoining or surrounded. by any such slum area or clearance area; or (b) aLny other land in any locality; the State Government may acquire the land by publishing in the official Gazette a notice to the effect that the State Government has decid{:d to acquire the Ia.nd in pursuance of this sectic·n : Provided that before publishing such notice f'he State_ Government may call upon the owner, or any other person who, in the opinion of the State Gov1~rnment may be interested in, such land to show cause why it should not be acquired, and after considering the cuase, if any, shown by the owner or any other pmon interested in t_he land, the State Government may pass ·such order' as it may deem fit. (2) When a notice as aforesaid is published in the official Gazette, the land shall on and from the date on which the notice is so published, vest absolutely in the State Government free from all e.ncumbrances." A B ##### c D E F G H A MYSORE GOVT. _v._ J. v. BHAT (Alagirisw~i, /,) 415 Section _16_ prescribes the l;>asis for determination of cc ir.pcmr.tion. for the land acquired under section 12. It reads : "(!) The amount payable as compensation in mpect of any land acquired under this Act, Shl\11 be deiermiried in the mann{;r specified in sub-section (2). 8 (2) (a) In respect of any land ·within adjoining or suB· rounded by any slum area or clearance area- ##### c D F G H (i) the amount payable as cpmpensation shall bo the amount equal to sixty· times the net average monthly income actually derived from such land during the period of five consecutive years immediately preceding the date oF publication of the notice referred to in section. 12; .and - •(ii) the net average monthly income referred to . above shall be calculated in accordance witli the principles and in the manner set out in. the. Second Schedule. (b) In respect of any other land, the amount payable as compensation shall· be an amount equal to the market value of such land on the date of publication of the notice under section 12 : Provided. that the amount payable under clause (a) or clause (b) shall not be in excess of the market value of the land or similar land on the first day of July 1959. - (3) The presctibod authority shall, after holding an inquily in the prescribed manner, determine in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) the amount payable as compensation and publish a notice in the official Gazette specifying the amount so determined and calling upon the owner cf the land and every person interested therein to intimate to it before a. date specified in the notice whether such owner or person agrees. to th~ .amount so determined and if he does not so agree, what amount he claims to be the amount payable as compensation. (4) Anypers?n who docs not ag!e{; to the ai:iio:µnt of compensation determined by the prescnbcd authonty under sub-. section (3) and claims a sum in excess of that amount may prefer an appeal to the Court of the District Jt!dge having jurisdiction within thirty days from the d~.te specified in the notice referred· to in that sub-section. - (5) On appeal, the Court of the District Judge shall determinr, the amount of compensation and its determination shallll be final. (6) Where there is any buildin& on the land in rcsrcc.t of_ which the amount of compensation has oocn dct()fnuncd _416_ SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1975] 2 S.C.R· under c~se (a) of sub-section (2) no separate compen5ation sh'lll b!:~aid in respect of such building. Provided that where the owner of the land and the owner of the building on such land are different, the prescribed authority shall apportion the amount of compen5ation between the ownP.r of the land and the owner of th1: building in such proportion as it considers reasonable: Prnvided further that the compcn5ation in respect of the building shall not in any case cxc:eed fifty per cent of the total amount of comoensation which has been determined in accordance with the provision> of this section." 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 section 3 and. 9 the possibility of arbitrary decisions cannot be ruled out. It must also be bJtne in mind that most of the owners of properties in the s.lum ar,n> ar.:: likely to bJ poor persons with slender means. On the other hand it may also be n'lcessary to bear in mind that quite often the persons who live in the slums may not be own<'lrs of the property but all the slum area might b1: owned by a rich person. In such cases •the residents of slums themsdves might be interested in the slum~• be ing declared as slum>. Onc:e an area is declared as a slum area the owners of ev;;ry building therein have tq_ apply for registration of their buildings. No owner of a property in the area can erect ~.ny ·new building or make any a.ddition. to, or alterat.ion in any exis.ting building without previous pe:rmission which may be subject to such restrictions or conditions as may bl: imposed by the competent au. thority. The authority concerned may also call upon the· owners ·to carry ot\t works of improvement a.nd if such a direction is not com plied with the authority may itself execute the: works of improve ment and recover the cost from him. Under section 10 the owners of the buiildings may bi: ask1'd to vacate and demolish them and on failure to do so the buildirgs m:\y be demolished and the cost of df:molition recovered from the owners. A notification under section 9 enables ~.n area to be declan:d 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 condition. The proviso to sub-section (1) provides for such a contingency but if there is no provision for hearing the affected person he cann')t bring to the notice ofthe conc~rned authority that his building is not unfit for human habitation or dangerous or injurious to hf:alth and such person would go un-heard. There can be no two opinions about the :need to hear the affected persons before declaring an area to _\re_ a slum area under section 3 or an area as a clearance area under section 9 o~ 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. A notification under section 9 enables ~.n area to be declan:d 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 condition. The proviso to sub-section (1) provides for such a contingency but if there is no provision for hearing the affected person he cann')t bring to the notice ofthe conc~rned authority that his building is not unfit for human habitation or dangerous or injurious to hf:alth A B ##### c D £ F G H A B c 0 E F G MYSORE GOVT .• _. v._ J, v. BHAT _(Alagiriswami,_ _1.)_ 417 With regard to section 12(1)(b), however, we do not consider that that is a section which suffers from the same vice as the other sections. The validity of section 12(1)(a) has been upheld by the High Court and.as we agree with the High Court we do not think it is necessary to say anything more. As regards section 12(l)(b), however, we do not agree with the High Court that the power to acquire any other land in any locality suffers from r.ny costitutional objection. The power under section 12(1) is exercisable to oxecute any work of improve- · ment in relation to any building in a slum area or to form or widen lanes and roads therein or to re-develop any clearance area. The power under section 12(1) (a) would be relatable to this purpose. But that section also enables acquisition of lands to rehabilitate slum dwellers. Such rehabilitation may not be in the original slum area itself. By its very nature a slum area is likely to be over-crowded and in re-developing it not enough land may be available to house all persons formerly. living in the cleared area. It may be. necessary to acquire other lands for the purpose of rehabilitating them. Therefore the power under section 12(l)(b) is relafable to the purpose of slum clearance itself. Furthermore, that power is nothing more than the power available to a State Government under the Land Acquisition Act. As the section itself provides for calling upon the owner or any other person interested in the land to show cause why it should not be acquired, which provision corresponds to sectio:p. SA of the Land Acquisition Act, we do not consider that this section suffers from any defect. As regards section 15 though the High Court con,sidered that it was not necessacy to go into its validity in view of its finding regard ing the other sections, it may be necessary to consider the validity _ of this section in the view that we have taken holding that the sections themselves are not bad but only the notifications issued thereunder. But we were informed at the bar by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of Mysore that a subsequent amendment of the Act has made . provision regarding compensation applicable to - acquisitions under section 12 of the Act on the same terms as under the Land Acquisition Act. we do not, therefore, consider it necessary to express any opinion on the validity of section 15. . . - In the result the appeals are allowed in part. We hold that sections 3, 9 and 12(l)(a) and (b) are valid but the three notifications, already referred to, are bad as the affected perspns were not given an opportunity of making representations against them. In the circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs. P.H.P. _Appeals allowed in part._