ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. 1. The petitioners are before this Court assailing the final notification dated 30-5-2005 issued by respondent 5 in exercise of the power vested under Section 3 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 ('the Act' for short). The petitioners claim to be the legal heirs of late Muniyappa alias Munichinnappa. The property bearing Sy. No. 1/4 of Byrasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, was owned by the family of the petitioners. Though the said property was acquired by the City Improvement rust Board ('the CITB' for snort), the extent of one gunta was left out from the acquisition. In that view, the petitioners claim that they continued to be the owners of the property which had been left out of the acquisition. In that regard, the petitioners seek to rely on the award and the supplementary award as at Annexures-F and G to the writ petition. Hence, it is contended that when the petitioners are the owners of the said extent, the respondents were not justified in indicating the said extent in the preliminary notification dated 25-10-2004 and thereafter notifying the same under Section 3 of the Act on 30-5-2005. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners while assailing the said action would contend that the very proceedings initiated to notify the property under Section 3 of the Act by issuing notice to the BDA who had no right and ownership for the extent that had been notified, is not justified. In that view, it is contended that the notice impugned is liable to be quashed. 3. Though written objection statement is not filed to the writ petition, the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 5 who are the notifying authorities would contend that the contention as put forth by the petitioners at this point would not be justified. It is his case that the very award that was relied upon by the petitioners is of the year 1953 and in respect of such acquisition when the petitioners have not produced any document to indicate the manner in which the property which is stated to be excluded from the acquisition is being enjoyed by the petitioners except for relying on an extract of the RTC, the Writ Court at this juncture cannot decide the right of the petitioner in such proceedings. It is therefore contended that the notification does not call for interference at this juncture. 4. In the light of the contentions put forth, what is necessary to be noticed is that the petitioners are claiming right to an extent which had been excluded from the process of acquisition for the CITB to which the BDA has subsequently succeeded. The petitioners contend that the extent of land which was included in the preliminary notification dated 25-10-2004 and the notification dated 30-5-2005 under Section 3 of the Act, is the property which actually belongs to the petitioners but has been notified without providing opportunity to the petitioners by issuing notice in that regard. 5. It is contended that the BDA which had no manner of right had consented for issue of such notification. Even if the nature of contention that is put forth is taken into consideration at this point in time, it would not be possible for this Court in a writ proceedings to determine the actual extent of the land and the exact location of the land that had been excluded from the acquisition and as to whether the petitioners had continued to enjoy the ownership rights of the property as on the date of the notification. These are aspects which would require a factual determination at the hands of the respondents at the outset and even thereafter, if there are any disputed questions relating to the ownership of the property, the same can only be resolved in a civil suit to be filed before the appropriate Court. 6. However, at the first instance, the respondents in any event would have to take note of the documents to be submitted by the petitioners and come to the conclusion as to whether any right is made out by the petitioners. Further even if the petitioners establish the right over the land which has been notified, the status of the land as to whether it has developed into a slum would also require consideration and if in that light, the notification as issued under Section 3 would remain justified and the petitioners establish their ownership right over the said property, it is thereafter that the respondents 1 and 4 will have to take a decision in the matter as to whether the said property is to be notified for acquisition as provided under the Act. To enable such consideration to be made by respondents 1 and 5, the petitioners shall furnish all documents and file an appropriate representation to respondent 5 to indicate the ownership rights as being claimed by the petitioners in respect of the petition schedule property which has been notified. As indicated above, if the documents relied upon by the petitioners establish the right without any dispute, to that effect respondent 5 shall take a decision with regard to the further proceedings to be held in the matter. However, on the other hand, if respondent 5 is of the opinion that the documents furnished by the petitioners do not establish the ownership right over the property, it would thereafter be open for the petitioners to file an appropriate civil suit and establish their right in that regard and thereafter approach the respondents for appropriate relief. Leaving open such liberty to the petitioners and the directions as issued to the respondents 1 and 5 hereinabove, the petitions stand disposed of.