JUDGMENT : B. Veerappa, J. The petitioners claiming to be the owners of the property in question, filed the present writ petitions for writ of certiorari to quash the preliminary notification dated 20/22.06.2009 bearing No.K.S.A:C.R:06/09-10 issued by the first respondent under Section 3 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973, Annexure-C and to quash final notification dated 22.06.2012 bearing No.KSA CR 6/09-10 issued by the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner under Section 3 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973, Annexure-D. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the legal representatives of late M.G.Shanthkumar, who was the sole and absolute owner of the above property being land measuring 8 Acres 01 guntas comprised in Sy.Nos.74 and 135 of Nayanappa Setty Palya, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, now B.T.M. Layout, having purchased the same from his mother under registered Sale Deed dated 29.07.1970, registered as Document No.2244/1970-71 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore South Taluk. The said property is more fully described in the Schedule hereto and hereinafter referred to the 'schedule property'. 3. It is submitted that on 28.02.1997, on the pretext of arranging finance for group housing development scheme proposed to be developed by late M.G.Shanthkumar on the schedule property, one Zahir Ahmed arranged a meeting with prospective financiers at his place in Avalahalli, off Kanakapura Road. When late Shanthkumar reached the place, he was abducted, detained there till the next day and his signature and thumb impressions were forcibly taken on many documents and blank papers under coercion and threat to his life. He was released thereafter and he immediately lodged a complaint with the Siddapura Police Station which was later transferred to the Thalaghattapura Police Station on jurisdictional grounds and registered as Crime No.47/1997. 4. As late Shanthkumar apprehended that the said Zahir Ahmed would misuse the papers and documents which he was forced to sign and affix his thumb impressions on under threat to his life, he filed O.S.No.3409/1997 on 24.04.1997 against Zahir Ahmed and others before the City Civil Court, Bangalore for permanent injunction, wherein on 25.04.1997 the Court was pleased to pass an Order of temporary injunction restraining the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar from registering any document in respect of the schedule property. 5. 5. In the meanwhile, on 09.06.1998, one N.Jayaram filed O.S.No.4498/1997 before the City Civil Court against Zahir Ahmed and late Shanthkumar for injuction restraining alienation of the schedule property alleging that late Shanthkumar had executed an agreement for sale in his favour. The Court granted an ad interim order of status quo in respect of the property. It is submitted that thereafter on 21.04.1999, when late Shanthkumar was travelling in an autorikshaw at about 12.05 p.m., he was once again abducted by Zahir Ahmed and others near Ashoka Pillar, 1st Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore by three persons and was blindfolded, transferred to another vehicle and taken to an unknown building and confined in a chair. All his belongings were taken away. The blindfold was thereafter removed and the late Plaintiff was made to affix his thumb impression and signature on many documents, blank papers, Sub-Registrar's Register, blank Vakalath forms, statutory forms, etc., under coercion and threat to life. Thereafter, he was again blindfolded and taken in a car to another place where, after taking off the blindfold, two people forced him to affix his thumb impressions and signature on some documents and in a register, again under coercion and threat to life. He was again taken to another place where more signatures and thumb impressions were taken under threat to life. He was made to sit there till dark and later blindfolded once again, taken in a car and released near St. Johns Medical College Hospital after returning all his belongings, at about 7:36 p.m. 6. It is further contended that he then walked up to Hosur Main Road, took an autorikshaw and reached home by about 8:30 p.m., and lodged a complaint at Siddapura Police Station at about 11:30 p.m., which was registered as Crime No.109/1999. On 22.04.1999, on enquiries made by him at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore South Taluk, Koramangala, B.D.A. Complex, Bangalore, late Shanthkumar was shocked to learn that 8 Sale Deeds in favour of various persons pertaining to the schedule property had been presented for registration. Thereafter, on 28.04.1999, he submitted a petition to the said Sub- Registrar clearly bringing to his notice the above events and requested him not to register the above Sale Deeds in view of the same and also in view of the above two orders in O.S.No.3409/1997 and No.4498/1997. Thereafter, on 28.04.1999, he submitted a petition to the said Sub- Registrar clearly bringing to his notice the above events and requested him not to register the above Sale Deeds in view of the same and also in view of the above two orders in O.S.No.3409/1997 and No.4498/1997. Despite the above petition, the Sub-Registrar proceeded to register the said 8 Sale Deeds on 30.07.1999. 7. It is contended that late Shanthkumar filed Applications in O.S.No.3409/1997 seeking amendment of the Plaint to include the relief of declaration of the Sale Deeds as null and void and also to implead the Sub- Registrar, Bangalore South Taluk. The Application for amendment was allowed and notice to the proposed Defendants was directed on the Application for impleadment. In the meanwhile, late Shanthkumar filed W.P.No.13363/2000 before this Hon'ble Court seeking cancellation of registration of the Sale Deeds, which came to be dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction reserving liberty to him to seek his remedy in the pending suit. Appeal against the said Order also came to be dismissed. Thereafter, he filed Applications in O.S.No.3409/1997 seeking stay of registration of the Sale Deeds and the proposed Defendants also filed Applications seeking recall of the order permitting amendment of the Plaint, etc. While allowing the Plaintiff's Application and rejecting the Defendants' Applications, the Trial Court also observed that late Shanthkumar had an option to prosecute the suit or initiate a fresh comprehensive suit against all necessary persons. Pursuant to the said orders, he withdrew the said suit with liberty to file fresh suit and filed O.S.No.2791/2001 seeking cancellation of the Sale Deeds, on the grounds as stated in the Plaint and inter alia that he was abducted and his signatures and thumb impressions were obtained under coercion and threat to life. Respondent No.1 is also defendant in the above suit. 8. The petitioners further contended that the suit O.S.No.2791/2001 came to be dismissed by the Trial Court, without appreciating and considering the case and the evidence of the parties in proper perspective. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioners being legal heirs of late Shanthkumar have filed R.F.A.No.472/2014 before this Hon'ble Court, wherein they had also filed I.A.1/2014 seeking an order of temporary injunctions to restrain the respondents therein from alienating, encumbering or creating any further third party interests in the schedule property until disposal of the appeal. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioners being legal heirs of late Shanthkumar have filed R.F.A.No.472/2014 before this Hon'ble Court, wherein they had also filed I.A.1/2014 seeking an order of temporary injunctions to restrain the respondents therein from alienating, encumbering or creating any further third party interests in the schedule property until disposal of the appeal. The Respondents therein filed counter affidavits in response to I.A.1/2014, stating that they had executed registered Agreements for Sale in favour of a certain third party. This Court, based on the said counter affidavits and after hearing Counsel for the parties, vide Order dated 19.06.2014 was pleased to restrain the Respondents therein from executing any sale deed in favour of the third party without obtaining express orders in that behalf. The Appeal has been admitted and is pending disposal. 9. It is further contended that in the meanwhile and during the pendency of the suit, late Shanthkumar was fatally assaulted by a gang of unidentified men on 01.08.2011 outside the Anekal Court premises after attending to one of his Court matters. He succumbed to his injuries on the spot. The petitioners thereafter came on record in the suit as his legal heirs. Independent criminal proceedings are pending in respect of the above incident. The petitioners have come to know that the impugned preliminary and final notifications dated 20/22.06.2009 and 22.06.2012 came to be issued by Respondent No.1 on behalf of Respondent No.2 under Section 3 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 ('the Act' for short) declaring the schedule property as 'slum area', without notice to late M.G.Shanthkumar and the petitioners and without giving any opportunity of hearing as borne out from the records. The petitioners have obtained under RTI certified copies of the entire proceedings of Respondent No.3 relating to the impugned notifications, which also evidence that no notice has been sent to late Shanthkumar, the Petitioners or any other person as owner. The said proceedings clearly show that the impugned notifications are a result of non-application of mind and have been issued without following due procedure as per law. 10. The petitioners further contended that the records and proceedings available with the petitioners clearly show that the impugned notifications have been issued solely pursuant to representations received from certain groups, organizations, associations, etc. 10. The petitioners further contended that the records and proceedings available with the petitioners clearly show that the impugned notifications have been issued solely pursuant to representations received from certain groups, organizations, associations, etc. regarding existence of a slum in the schedule property and without any independent enquiry or application of mind by the respondents. Further, the proceedings of respondent No.1 show that respondent No.1 in turn merely acted on the request of respondent No.3 in issuing the impugned notifications yet again without any independent enquiry or application of mind. The impugned notifications and proceedings related thereto were not within the knowledge of the petitioners or late M.G.Shanthkumar. The petitioners only learnt of the same in the year 2013 i.e. after the death of late M.G.Shanthkumar and immediately made enquiries with the concerned authorities and obtained certified copies of the impugned notifications and the proceedings of respondent No.3, in the month of November 2013. Certified copy of the proceedings of respondent No.1 was obtained in August 2014. In the meanwhile, the judgment and decree in O.S.No.2791/2001 was pronounced on 22.02.2014 and the petitioners filed the above R.F.ANo.472/2014. Thereafter, after seeking advice from their Counsel the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 11. The State Government filed objections to the main writ petitions and contended that on the basis of the Government Notification, the Deputy Commissioner issued preliminary notification; no objections were received from any quarter particularly from M.G.Shanthkumar or from his legal heirs. The Commissioner of Karnataka Slum Clearance Board (for short 'KSCB'), Bangalore has reported that several huts have been put up on the said land, civic amenities are to be provided to the slum dwellers, therefore, it is necessary to declare the said area as 'slum area' so that Board could take action for the development of the said Area by providing all civic amenities etc. Accordingly, final notification came to be issued. The report dated 07.02.2009 submitted by the Commissioner, Karnataka Slum Clearance Board, Copy of the spot inspection report, Check list, Sketch, R.T.C. Extract of Sri. M.G.Shanthkumar and others voters list, slum dwellers list and Map are herewith produced and marked as Annexures R2 to R8 respectively. It is further stated that M.G.Shanthkumar has sold the land in question to a third parties in the year 1988. Therefore, the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the notifications. M.G.Shanthkumar and others voters list, slum dwellers list and Map are herewith produced and marked as Annexures R2 to R8 respectively. It is further stated that M.G.Shanthkumar has sold the land in question to a third parties in the year 1988. Therefore, the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the notifications. It is further stated that petitioners have also filed W.P.No.15245/2014, dated 14.01.2015 & W.P.No.3558/2015, dated 09.02.2016 before this Court challenging the preliminary and final notifications, the said writ petitions were disposed off with certain observations. Therefore, said writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 12. Respondent No.3-The Karnataka Slum Clearance Board also filed an objections and contended that the very writ petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable in view of the alternative and efficacious remedy available to the petitioners. It is further contended that the petitions filed by the third parties challenging the preliminary and final notifications in view of alternative and efficacious remedy available to the parties before this Court has been dismissed as not maintainable. Further it is stated that the Land Acquisition Officer, BDA under a letter dated 13.04.2017 addressed to the Assistant Executive Engineer-2, Slum Board, Bangalore has clearly admitted that the Land bearing survey number 74 measuring 4 acres 1 gunta and survey number 135 measuring 4 acres are the lands belonging to the BDA. Hence, the petitioners have no locus-standi to maintain the present writ petitions and are liable to be dismissed. It is further contended that as per spot inspection conducted by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Slum Board, submitted a report that there are 1552 families residing in slum and there are 1635 is the total population as per google map and the sketch in respect of Sy.Nos.74 and 135 produced at Annexures - R-4, 5, 6 & 7. It is further stated that on the basis of the recommendation made by the third respondent, the Deputy Commissioner issued preliminary notification-Annexure-C calling for objections within 15 days from the date of the notification, as no objections were received; final notification came to be issued. Therefore, writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 13. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties to the lis. 14. Sri. Therefore, writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 13. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties to the lis. 14. Sri. R.V.S.Naik, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the impugned notifications issued by the Deputy Commissioner is liable to be quashed on the ground when the State Government has authorized the Deputy Commissioner to take necessary steps under the provisions of Sections 3 & 11 of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner cannot sub-delegate his powers to respondent No.3- the KSCB to consider the objections or receive the objections before issuing the final notification. Therefore, on that ground alone the impugned notifications are liable to be quashed. He further contended that though there is no provision under the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 for hearing, but natural justice has to be followed and affected persons shall be given notice and an opportunity of being heard. Admittedly, as on date of preliminary notification, the original owner- M.G.Shanthkumar' name was shown in the notification in respect of Sy.Nos.74 & 135 and the same was reflected in final notification. 15. He further contended that the impugned notifications issued by the Deputy Commissioner without giving notice or an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners cannot be sustained in view of the noncompliance of principles of natural justice. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of PUTTAKAMAIAH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, (1990) ILR(Kar) 1265, paragraph No.4 reads as under: "4. But that Section however, does not contemplate a further delegation by the Gazetted Assistant to his own assistant as has happened in this case. From the facts it becomes clear, the Assistant Commissioner who had been asked by the Deputy Commissioner to execute the decree transmitted by the Civil Court to the Deputy Commissioner had in turn assigned that work to the Tahsildar with the result, a case of delegate making a further delegation-having arisen, the question is whether it is legally permissible. 'Delegatus potest non delegare' is the maxim i.e., one who is himself a delegate cannot further delegate the task entrusted to him. Section 54 clearly permits only one delegation i.e., delegation by the Deputy Commissioner to his Gazetted Assistant and hence there can be no further delegation by the Gazetted Assistant to any one else." 16. 'Delegatus potest non delegare' is the maxim i.e., one who is himself a delegate cannot further delegate the task entrusted to him. Section 54 clearly permits only one delegation i.e., delegation by the Deputy Commissioner to his Gazetted Assistant and hence there can be no further delegation by the Gazetted Assistant to any one else." 16. With regard to violation of natural justice, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of THE GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE AND OTHERS vs. J. V. BHAT AND OTHERS, (1975) 1 SCC 110 , Administrative Law - Natural justice - Rule of "audi alteram partem" - Applicability of to exercise of statutory powers, the relevant statute being silent - Approach - Whether the statutory provisions unconstitutional or the exercise of power ignoring the rules of natural justice - Constitution of India - Article 32 and 226, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the very provisions of Mysore Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1958 at paragraphs 18 and 21 held that all the affected persons should be given an opportunity to be heard in respect of the action proposed. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners sought to allow the writ petitions. 17. Per contra, Ms. Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2 sought to justify the impugned action of the Deputy Commissioner and contended that the Deputy Commissioner has issued preliminary notification exercising the powers under Section 3 of the Act, only authorized the Secretary, KSCB to receive the objections within 15 days from the date of notification and ultimately the objections received by Secretary, KSCB were considered by the Deputy Commissioner and after satisfying that the property in question, there are several huts have been put up on the said land, civic amenities are provided to the slum dwellers, therefore, it is necessary to declare the said area as 'slum area' followed by the final notification, since the provisions which does not mandate to issue notice for the affected persons or providing an opportunity for hearing, the Deputy Commissioner proceeded to issue final notification under the provisions of Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973. Therefore, she sought to dismiss the writ petitions. 18. Sri. Therefore, she sought to dismiss the writ petitions. 18. Sri. B.N.Suresh Babu, learned counsel for respondent No.3 sought to justify the impugned action of Deputy Commissioner and contended that there are 1552 families residing in the slum existing Sy.Nos.74 & 135 land measuring 8 acres 1 gunta and there are 1635 total population of the area. On the basis of the recommendation made by the Commissioner, KSCB, the Deputy Commissioner issued the preliminary and final notifications by following the procedure in accordance with law. He further contended that the Deputy Commissioner has already issued the preliminary and final notifications to acquire the land in Sy.Nos.74 & 135 measuring 8 acres 1 gunta. Therefore, the petitioners have no locus standi to maintain present writ petitions, therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. 19. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is specific case of the petitioners that property in question originally belongs to one M.G.Shanthkumar who is the brother of present petitioners under the registered sale deed dated 29.07.1970. The name of M.G.Shanthkumar-original owner of the property in question is shown in both preliminary and final notifications issued by the Deputy Commissioner. It is also not in dispute that on the recommendation made by the third respondent, the Deputy Commissioner proceeded to issue the preliminary notification exercising powers under Section 3 of the Act, on the basis of the authorization made by the State Government by notification dated 26.06.2002. It is also not in dispute that the Deputy Commissioner issued preliminary notification-Annexure-C, authorizing the Secretary, KSCB to receive the objections within a period of 15 days from the date of notification and objections filed after 15 days will not be considered. Admittedly, the State Government by notification dated 26.06.2002 specifically authorized the Deputy Commissioner to exercise powers under Sections 3 & 11 of the said Act in respect of the Slum Areas falling within the jurisdiction of Pattanagere, Dasarahalli, Byalarayanapura, Yelahanka, Bommanahalli, K.R.Pura, Mahadevapura City municipal councils and Kengeri town panchayat. He cannot sub-delegate the other officer/official to receive the objections, it is Deputy Commissioner alone can receive the objections and by considering the same, he can pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. He cannot sub-delegate the other officer/official to receive the objections, it is Deputy Commissioner alone can receive the objections and by considering the same, he can pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Though the learned AGA tried to convince this Court that only the objections received by the Secretary, KSCB and by considering the same, the Deputy Commissioner has issued the impugned notifications has not reflected either in the notifications or in the statement of objections. Therefore, the contention of the learned AGA that the Deputy Commissioner has only considered the objections received by the Secretary, KSCB cannot be accepted. 20. It is also not in dispute that both the notifications contain the name of original owner-M.G.Shanthkumar. Even in the absence of any of the provisions of the Act and Rules to issue notice, the Deputy Commissioner ought to have issued notice to the owner of the property in question before issuing final notification to comply natural justice i.e., Rule of "audi alteram partem". Admittedly, before issuing of preliminary and final notifications, the Deputy Commissioner has not followed the principles of natural justice. Though the Act is silent about the notice and hearing, the fact remains that natural justice-Rule of "audi alteram partem" cannot be denied in respect of lawful owner of the property in question. My view is fortified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the provisions the Mysore Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act in the case of THE GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE AND OTHERS vs. J. V. BHAT AND OTHERS, (1975) 1 SCC 110 , at paragraphs 18 & 21 has held as follows: "18. A notification under Section 9 enables an area to be declared a clearance area on the ground that the most satisfactory method of dealing with the conditions in the area is the demolition of all the buildings in the area. But even in a slum area there may be buildings which may not have to be pulled down and they may be in quite good condition. The proviso to sub-section (1) provides for such a contingency but if there is no provision for hearing the affected person he cannot bring to the notice of the concerned authority that his building is not unfit for human habitation or dangerous or injurious to health, and such person would go unheard. The proviso to sub-section (1) provides for such a contingency but if there is no provision for hearing the affected person he cannot bring to the notice of the concerned authority that his building is not unfit for human habitation or dangerous or injurious to health, and such person would go unheard. There can be no two opinions about the need to hear the affected persons before declaring an area to be a slum area under Section 3, or an area as a clearance area under Section 9 or before taking action under Section 10. All these difficulties will be removed if the affected persons are given an opportunity to be heard in respect of the action proposed. 21. In the result the appeals are allowed in part. We hold that Sections 3, 9 and 12(1) (a) and (b) are valid but the three notifications, already referred to, are bad as the affected persons were not given an opportunity of making representations against them. In the circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs." 21. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that M.G.Shanthkumar-original owner of property in question filed the O.S.No.2791/2001, dated 22.02.2014 for declaration of title, the same came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same the legal representatives of M.G.Shanthkumar filed RFA.No.472/2014, by judgment and decree dated 25.03.2015 which came to be allowed. The special leave to appeal CC No.213/2017 filed by the alleged purchasers/defendants in the suit came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 11.01.2017, and the same has reached finality. It is also not in dispute that the statement of the objections filed by the third respondent, who stated on oath that there are about 1552 families residing in the slum and total population is about 1635 and the KSCB has provided all the amenities/basic facilities to the people who are residing in the slum. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the BDA has already issued the preliminary and final notifications, which are the subject matter of writ petitions filed before this Court and the said writ petitions are still pending for adjudication between the parties. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the BDA has already issued the preliminary and final notifications, which are the subject matter of writ petitions filed before this Court and the said writ petitions are still pending for adjudication between the parties. Though the residents of slum area i.e., 1552 families were not impleaded as parties in the present petitions, the fact remains that they are residing in the said area and the State Government has provided all the facilities to them, is not in dispute. The petitioners have also not disputed in the present petitions that there are 1552 families residing in the property in question as on today. 22. In view of the aforesaid admitted facts, it is clear that M.G.Shanthkumar claiming to be the original owner of the property in question went up to Hon'ble Supreme Court and succeeded and he has been declared as owner of the property in question in RFA.No.472/2014 filed before this Court. It is specific case of the respondents- Government that BDA acquired the land in question and it is subject matter of present writ petitions stated supra. In view of the aforesaid admitted facts, Deputy Commissioner before issuing preliminary and final notifications has not followed the principles of natural justice-Rule of "audi alteram partem" and in view of the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra, the impugned notifications cannot be sustained. 23. Admittedly, slum dwellers are residing in the property in question and all the parties are directed to maintain status-quo as on today and shall not disturb the possession of slum dwellers as on today till the Deputy Commissioner/Government takes appropriate action in accordance with law. 24. For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned notifications issued by the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-C dated 20/22.06.2009 bearing No.K.S.A:C.R:06/09-10 and final notification dated 22.06.2012 bearing No.KSA CR 6/09-10, Annexure- D are hereby quashed. The matters are remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration after giving notice and opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and others who are interested including the residents of slum area as on today and proceed strictly in accordance with law. 25. All the contentions urged by the parties are kept open to urge at the relevant point of time. Liberty is reserved to the third respondent to make a list of all slum dwellers and others. 25. All the contentions urged by the parties are kept open to urge at the relevant point of time. Liberty is reserved to the third respondent to make a list of all slum dwellers and others. Since, this Court has protected the interest of the slum dwellers, the question of impleading them as applicants would not arise. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2019 filed for impleading is disposed off.