Fathima Beevi, J. - (1.) The Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973, which received the assent of the President on 1st October, 1974, is an Act to provide for improvement and clearance of slums in the State of Karnataka. Section 3 of the Act empowers the Government to declare certain areas as slum areas. If the Government is satisfied that any area which is likely to be a source of danger to health, safety or convenience of the public of that area or of its neighbourhood by reason of the Area being low-lying, insanitary, squalid, over-crowded or otherwise, the Government may by notification declare the area as 'slum area'. Under Section 11, when the Government is satisfied on a report from the competent authority that the most satisfactory method of dealing with the conditions in the area is the clearance of such area and demolition of the buildings in the area, it may, by notification, declare the area to be the 'slum clearance area'.
(2.) The notification No.HMA59MCS76 dated 17-1-1977 was issued by the Karnataka Government declaring an extent of one acre in Timber Yard slum by the side of Main Road, Cottonpet, Bangalore, as 'slum area'. After considering the objections, another notification dated 30-12-1977 was issued 'under Section 1 1 (1) of the Act declaring the (1984) 2 SCR 67:1984 entire land as 'slum clearance area'. However, on January 20, 1981, the Government issued notification under Section 3 (1) cancelling the earlier notification dated 30-12-1977 and redeclaring an extent of 1412 guntas only as slum area'. The notification dated 20-1-1981 had been challenged by the appellants mainly on the grounds that it is in violation of the principle of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution has been violated. It was contended that slum dwellers who are affected by the Government's action have not been given an opportunity of being heard and they have been denied equality by denying basic human needs since a major part of the slum area has been excluded from the operation of the scheme.
(3.) The single Judge of the High Court took the view that the appellants had no locus standi to challenge the impugned notification and even on merits there was no case. The Division Bench of the High Court agreed on the question of locus standi and without going into the merits confirmed the judgment.;