B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) AT issue, is the validity of the action of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad in declaring the property of the petitioners as a slum area in exercise of the powers under Section 3 (1) of the Andhra pradesh Slum Improvement (Acquisition of land) Act, 1956.

( 2 ) THE notifications were issued and gazetted differently for different areas owned by the petitioners. While in W. P. No. 19117 of 1987, notification was issued on 14-10-1987 and gazetted on 5-11-1987, in W. P. NO. 673 of 1992 the notification was issued on 4-12-1991, which was gazetted on 26-12-1991. In the said writ petitions, the validity of the above notifications is assailed as being unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Insofar as W. P. No. 9668 of 1987 is concerned, a declaration is sought for, that the action of respondents 1 and 2 in issuing slum area occupancy certificates to the tenants of the petitioners in premises bearing Municipal Nos. 5-4-51 to 5-4-108 and 5-4-123 to 5-4-182/2 as illegal as also the action of respondents 3 to 5 in issuing electricity connections to the above premises without the consent of the petitioners.

( 3 ) THE property is situated in the heart of hyderabad city in between Mozamjahi market and Abid Shopping Complex and is surrounded by all commercial houses and is the ancestral property of the petitioners. There was a civil action for partition among themselves in O. S. No. 300 of 1973 on the file of n Additional Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad and the same was decreed on 23-4-1974 earmarking their shares. Meanwhile, on the advent of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) act, 1976 the properties were declared as contemplated under the said Act and the said declarations were scrutinized and all the petitioners were held to be non-surplus holders. Thus, the petitioners were entitled to hold the property and exercise their ownership rights as they deem fit. But, their complaint is that fetters, which are unreasonable and arbitrary, are being placed on their exercise of rights by issuance of the notifications mentioned supra and the same are unsustainable and they seek relief from this Court to quash the said notifications for the grounds stated, enabling them to exercise their rights over the property and particularly for the development of the remaining property for noble and humane cause of providing further more sophistic and specialised treatment for opthalmic patients and also for allied activities.

( 4 ) IN a large complex owned by the petitioners apart from their residences and their opthalmic units including the hospital, there had been some tenants. While some tenants settled the matter amicably and vacated their respective premises, others had been continuing. Rent control proceedings were initiated by the petitioners against the said tenants on the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises for personal use. In some cases eviction has been ordered, which was affirmed on appeal by the Chief judge, City Small Causes Court as also by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Pursuant to the same, most of the tenants have vacated the premises and some tenants are still hanging on to the premises under the guise of the notifications issued under the slum Act of 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Slum Act ). Against some other tenants, still proceedings of eviction are pending and they are hauled-up because of issuance of notifications under the Slum Act. As seen from the material on record, the tenants, left on their own, would abide by law, but for the intervention of trade-unionists. Firstly, the proceedings under the A. P. Charitable and hindu Religious Institutions and endowments Act (for short the endowments Act ) have been initiated on the ground that the Temples, which are located within the complex, are liable to be registered under the Endowments Act, that the petitioners have got no right over the properties and that th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document