TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court ruling on Mysore Slum Areas Act emphasizes constitutionality, natural justice, and procedural fairness</h1> <h3>Government of Mysore & Ors Versus J.V. Bhat, Etc. Etc</h3> Government of Mysore & Ors Versus J.V. Bhat, Etc. Etc - 1975 AIR 596, 1975 SCR (2) 407 Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Sections 3, 9, 12, and 15 of the Mysore Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1958.2. Validity of three notifications issued under the Act.3. Applicability of principles of natural justice.Analysis:1. Constitutionality of Sections 3, 9, 12, and 15 of the Mysore Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1958:The High Court struck down Sections 3 and 9 as violating Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, and Section 12(1)(b) as violating Article 14. However, the Supreme Court approached the issue by emphasizing the presumption of constitutionality unless proven otherwise. The Court highlighted that the principles of natural justice should be applied unless explicitly excluded by statute. The judgment referenced several cases, including Cooper v. The Board of Works for the Wandsworth District, King v. The Electricity Commissioners, and A.K. Kraipak v. Union, to establish that administrative actions must adhere to principles of natural justice. The Court concluded that Sections 3 and 9 require a hearing for affected parties before declaring an area as a slum or clearance area, respectively. Section 12(1)(b) was deemed constitutional as it allows for the acquisition of land to rehabilitate slum dwellers, similar to the powers under the Land Acquisition Act. The Court did not express an opinion on Section 15 due to a subsequent amendment aligning compensation provisions with the Land Acquisition Act.2. Validity of Three Notifications Issued Under the Act:The three notifications in question were:- A declaration under Section 3 dated 17-11-1960.- A declaration under Section 9 dated 20-4-1961.- A notification under Section 12 dated 20-12-1962.The High Court held these notifications unconstitutional because the authorities did not exercise quasi-judicial power. The Supreme Court, however, found that the notifications were invalid due to the failure to provide affected persons an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized that the duty to hear objections before making decisions affecting property rights is implicit in the exercise of statutory powers.3. Applicability of Principles of Natural Justice:The Supreme Court underscored the evolving concept of natural justice, noting that it supplements the law to secure justice and prevent miscarriage of justice. The Court cited cases like Binapani Dei and Kraipak to illustrate that administrative actions affecting individual rights must adhere to natural justice principles, including the right to a hearing. The Court concluded that the principles of natural justice apply to the functions under Sections 3 and 9 of the Act, necessitating a hearing for affected parties before declaring slum or clearance areas.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Sections 3, 9, and 12(1)(a) and (b) but invalidated the three notifications due to the lack of adherence to natural justice principles. The appeals were allowed in part, affirming the need for procedural fairness in administrative actions affecting property rights. No order as to costs was made.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
