Natural justice is implied in slum clearance powers; declarations without hearing were invalid, while the acquisition power was upheld.
Statutory powers to declare slum and clearance areas were not unconstitutional merely because the Act did not expressly provide a hearing; where civil rights are affected and the statute does not exclude it, natural justice is implied in the exercise of the power. On that basis, the declarations and acquisition-related notifications were vitiated because affected owners and occupants were not given an opportunity to make representations. Section 12(1)(b), providing ancillary acquisition power with a show-cause safeguard, was upheld as constitutionally valid.
Issues: (i) Whether sections 3 and 9 of the Mysore Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1958 were unconstitutional for not providing an opportunity of hearing to affected persons; (ii) whether the notifications issued under sections 3, 9 and 12 were invalid for want of observance of natural justice; (iii) whether section 12(1)(b) of the Mysore Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1958 suffered from constitutional infirmity.
Issue (i): Whether sections 3 and 9 of the Mysore Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1958 were unconstitutional for not providing an opportunity of hearing to affected persons.
Analysis: The statutory scheme empowered the competent authority to declare slum areas, declare clearance areas and take consequential action affecting property rights and occupation without expressly excluding the application of natural justice. The Court held that, where the statute does not prohibit a hearing, the principles of natural justice may be read into the exercise of such powers. Declarations under sections 3 and 9 had serious civil consequences and could affect owners and occupants substantially, so fairness required an opportunity to be heard before such declarations were made.
Conclusion: Sections 3 and 9 were not unconstitutional on their face, but the exercise of powers under them required observance of natural justice.
Issue (ii): Whether the notifications issued under sections 3, 9 and 12 were invalid for want of observance of natural justice.
Analysis: Although the provisions themselves were upheld, the actual notifications were vulnerable because the affected persons were not given an opportunity to make representations before the declarations and acquisition steps were taken. The Court treated the hearing requirement as implicit in the exercise of the statutory powers under sections 3 and 9, and found that the absence of such opportunity vitiated the notifications.
Conclusion: The notifications under sections 3, 9 and 12 were bad for observance of the principles of natural justice.
Issue (iii): Whether section 12(1)(b) of the Mysore Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1958 suffered from constitutional infirmity.
Analysis: The power to acquire other land in any locality was held to be ancillary to slum clearance and rehabilitation, and comparable to acquisition powers under the general land acquisition regime. The provision itself contained a show-cause mechanism before acquisition, and the Court found no constitutional defect in the breadth of the power.
Conclusion: Section 12(1)(b) was valid.
Final Conclusion: The statutory provisions were upheld, but the impugned notifications failed because they were issued without affording the affected persons a hearing; the appeals therefore succeeded only to that limited extent.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory power affects civil rights and the statute does not exclude it, the principles of natural justice are implied as a condition of valid exercise of the power, even if the provision itself is constitutionally valid.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
