GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE & ORS. versus J. V. BHAT, ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 407 · Decided: 14-10-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

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.] 
c 
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. 
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 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(ii) are, by reason of dilapidation, overcrowding, faulty arrangement or desi11n, 
narrowness of fnulty arrangement of streets, lack of ventilation, light, or sanitation 
facilitles1 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-
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 
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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.