AR. LAKSHMANAN, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order dated 18-6-2001, passed by a learned Judge of this Court, dismissing the writ petition being WP No. 4376 of 1990, filed by the appellant, impugning the notification dated 12-4-1984 issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (for short the Corporation ), in purported exercise of his power under Section 3 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956 (for short the Act ), proposing to acquire an extent of 3000 Sq. yds. of land.

( 2 ) THE appellant claims to be the owner and possessor of an extent of Ac. 1-24 guntas of land in Sy. No. 887, being the Wakf property. Before the learned single Judge, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner-appellant that before issuing the impugned notification, no notice as contemplated under Section 2 (3) of the Act was issued to the petitioner, and that the impugned notification is contrary to the spirit of the judgment, dated 21-4-1987, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in WP No. 8331 of 1981.

( 3 ) THE learned single Judge, on the first point held that it is clearly stated in the counter that notice calling for objections, if any, was affixed at the site proposed to be acquired and the same was also published in the local newspapers such as "deccan Chronicle" and "siasat", dated 18-11-1983, and as no objections were received, the notification under Section 3 (2) of the Act was issued. On the second point he held that the judgment in WP No. 8331 of 1981, dated 21-4-1987, would in no way affect the validity of the notification, which is impugned in the present writ petition.

( 4 ) HEARD the learned Counsel on either side.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondents while issuing the notification, impugned in the writ petition, seeking to acquire 3000 Sq. yds of land, have not followed the procedure laid down under Section 3 (2) of the Act, in letter and spirit. This is denied by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation. It is stated in para 4 of the counter-affidavit, filed by the respondents in the writ petition, that before issuing the impugned notification under Section 3 (2) of the Act, notice calling for objections, if any, was affixed at the site in question, and it was also published in local newspapers such as "deccan Chronicle" and "siasat", and as no objections were received, the impugned notification was issued, and since then, the acquired land in question is absolutely vested in the Government. It is further stated that the acquired land was occupied by slum dwellers for more than 50 years, and there were no graves in the said land, and it is not correct to say that the Corporation cannot acquire the land. It is further stated the Corporation was not a party to the proceedings in WP No. 8331 of 1981. No reply affidavit was filed by the appellant rebutting the averments made by the Corporation in its counter.

( 6 ) HAVING regard to the averments made by the Corporation in the counter filed by it, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the provisions of Section 3 (2) of the Act have not been complied with by the respondents in issuing the impugned notification, cannot be accepted. Hence, the said contention is rejected.

( 7 ) WE have perused the notification dated 12-4-1984, impugned in the writ petition, issued by the Commissioner of the Corporation in exercise of his power under Section 3 (2) of the Act. It is stated in the notification that notices to the owners and other persons interested in the land, were issued in Roc No. 23/ucd/d/83, dated 3-11-1983 of the Special Officer/ Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, and also published in local newspapers on 18-11-1983 to show-cause as to why the lands belonging to them in the notified slum areas should not be acquired with a view to undertaking the execution of work designed to improve or clean the are

Click Here to Read the rest of this document