The authorities must strictly implement the provisions of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973, and the Court can issue appropriate directions or reliefs as justified by the circumstances.

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—In these petitions, the Petitioners, claiming as owners of land in Town Survey No. 8 of Bellary Town measuring an extent of 2 acres 53 cents, have called in question the validity of a communication dated 18.5.1998 (copy at Annexure-G) in No. REV/DC/8/PS/98-99/slum which is in the form of a notice issued by the third Respondent-Deputy Commissioner indicating the further action proposed in respect of the above referred land which was subject matter of a Notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) as also the validity of another communication in No. DC/Ps/64 of 1998-99 which is undated (copy at Annexure-J) which again has been issued by the third Respondent-Deputy Commissioner to one Aeruva Thippaiah, who it is claimed, is the power of attorney holder of Petitioners 1 and 2. Under these communications while the Petitioners were apprised that their challenge to the Notification dated 5.9.1992 issued under Section 3 of the Act through Writ Petition Nos. 28065 and 28066 of 1992 had filed as per the order dated 24.7.1996 passed by this Court in these writ petitions and further action under the Act was being pursued, the Petitioner's oral request for compensation in respect of the land was being under consideration by issuing directions to the first Respondent-Slum Clearance Board to negotiate and settle the matter with the Petitioners in respect of payment of compensation in consonance with the provisions of the Act and Rules.

2. The grievance of the Petitioners is that the action proposed by the 1st and 3rd Respondents for effecting improvement in the slum area declared under the Notification issued under Section 3 of the Act having been in consonance with the procedure required to be followed by the authorities under the Act and further that though the Act contemplates an opportunity to be accorded to the owners of the land to effect the improvements by themselves and only on their failure to effect such improvements, the authorities were required to step in and effect improvements at the cost of owners, only after an opportunity to the owners to effect such improvement and further that though the communication at Annexure-J issued by the Deputy Commissioner apprised them that directions had been issued to the first Respondent Board to negotiate with them and pay compensation in respect of the land and for taking further action for notifying the lands and effecting improvements and for handing over certain extents in favour of various occupants, there being no response or action on the part of the first Respondent-Board, such action of the Deputy Commissioner, as also of the Board, which could be given effect to or carried out only after the land in question is acquired, could not be given effect to without resorting to such acquisition as contemplated under Section 17 of the Act.

3. Sri K. Raghavendra Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners points out that though the Petitioners had failed in their earlier efforts to get over the Notification issued under Section 3 of the Act, it does not absolve, the authorities from following or conforming to the provisions of the Act and even assuming for argument sake, the Notification as issued under Section 3 of the Act holds the field as on date in respect of the disputed land. Nevertheless, if the parties take any further action as contemplated under Sections 6, 7, 11 and 14 of the Act, then such action becomes bad in law and the Petitioners are entitled to challenge such illegal action as being not supported by the authority of law and as being in violation of the contemplated procedure under the Act and the Petitioners are not estopped from questioning such action before this Court.

4. Though the prayer in the writ petition is for quashing of the communications at Annexures 'G' and 'J', the learned Counsel submits that it is always open to th