ORDER : K. LAKSHMAN, J. Heard Mr. K.Sreenivas, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.7088 of 2008; Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s. Bharadwaj Associates appearing for unofficial respondents No.7 to 25 in W.P.No.7088 of 2008 and petitioners in C.C.No.180 of 2021; and Mr. G.Madhusudan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for respondents No.2 to 5 in W.P.No.7088 of 2008 and respondents in C.C.No.180 of 2021. 2. The writ petition is filed to declare the action of 2 nd respondent/GHMC in cancelling the orders of the 3 rd respondent / The Additional Commissioner (Development), GHMC, vide proceedings dated 20.12.2007, as illegal. 3. The petitioners are claiming that they belongs to the lower social strata of the Society and all of them hail from downtrodden sections of the Society. They have been living for more than three decades in Ward No.6 of Block No.6 of Bholakpur Village within the limits of GHMC. The said place is popularly known as ‘Ramaswamy Compound’. It is a slum area. In the meeting dated18.03.1979, 2 nd respondent had taken a decision to list out all the existing slums in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. Accordingly, 2 nd respondent has prepared a statement showing that there are 455 slum areas including the subject property in twin cities. Notes on slums in twin cities was also prepared by Director (UCD), MCH, Hyderabad. Pursuant to the said Notes, authorities have issued a notification No.7 dated 17.02.1983 in terms of Section 3(1) of Andhra Pradesh Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Lands) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1956’) declaring the areas described in the schedule therein as slum areas. It is a private land. Challenging the said notification, owners of the said land i.e. R.Yadagiri and 19 others filed W.P.No.8359 of 1985. Vide order dated 06.08.1985 erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, dismissed the said writ petition. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, owners of the said land, preferred intra- Court appeal W.A.No.1044 of 1985. Vide order dated 07.04.1986, the said writ appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench. Thereafter, pursuant to the said notification dated 17.02.1983, the petitioners herein were directed to submit representation/objections. They have submitted representations and their consent was also obtained for developing slums under the housing scheme. All the petitioners have given consent. Vide order dated 07.04.1986, the said writ appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench. Thereafter, pursuant to the said notification dated 17.02.1983, the petitioners herein were directed to submit representation/objections. They have submitted representations and their consent was also obtained for developing slums under the housing scheme. All the petitioners have given consent. Thereafter, government has issued gazette notification under Section 3(2) of the Act, 1956 dated 12.11.1987. The Revenue Divisional Officer, has also issued D-form pattas to all the petitioners. Some of the unofficial respondents in the present writ petition filed W.P.Nos.238, 239, 14501 of 1988, 3390 and 3478 of 1992 challenging the said gazette notification dated 12.11.1987. Vide common order dated 01.12.1995, erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, allowed the said writ petitions and quashed the impugned notification dated 24.10.1987, published in the A.P.Gazette dated 12.11.1987 under Section 3(2) of the Act, the transfer of land under Section 4 of the Act therein and the allotment of parcels of land out of the required land are hereby quashed. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said common order, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation preferred intra-Court appeals vide W.A.Nos.795 to 799 of 1996. Vide common order dated 25.07.1996, the Division Bench modified the said order and remanded to the competent authority to proceed with the enquiry from the stage of providing to the petitioners – respondents all relevant information/material upon which it is decided that there is a case to proceed under Section 3 of the Act in respect of the subject land. The said order attained finality. 5. In compliance with the said order of the Division Bench, erstwhile Municipal Corporation has completed the said exercise and vide proceedings dated 26.06.1999 issued notification under Section 3(2) of the Act, 1956. The same was published in the gazette dated 02.08.1999. 6. Some of the unofficial respondents filed vide W.P.No.26330 of 1998, W.P.No.19303 of 1999 and 19914 of 1999 challenging the said aforesaid proceedings. During pendency of the said writ petitions, 2 nd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings dated 20.12.2007 cancelling the proceedings dated 26.06.1999 issued by the Additional Commissioner (DEB), MCH. 2 nd respondent directed 6 th respondent- competent authority under the Act, 1956, to issue fresh notice and conduct enquiry. During pendency of the said writ petitions, 2 nd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings dated 20.12.2007 cancelling the proceedings dated 26.06.1999 issued by the Additional Commissioner (DEB), MCH. 2 nd respondent directed 6 th respondent- competent authority under the Act, 1956, to issue fresh notice and conduct enquiry. 2 nd respondent also observed that 3 rd respondent i.e. Additional Commissioner (Development), MCH has no power to issue proceedings dated 26.06.1999 in terms of Section 3(1) of Act, 1956. 7. Challenging the impugned proceedings dated 20.12.2007 of 2 nd respondent, the petitioners filed the present writ petition contending that the respondent has passed the impugned order without application of mind, in violation of the principles of natural justice, without hearing the petitioners and also in violation of the procedure laid down under the Act, 1956. 8. 2 nd respondent has filed counter contending that 3 rd respondent has no power to issue proceedings dated 26.06.1999 in terms of Section 3(1) of the Act,1956. Therefore, the same was withdrawn by the 2 nd respondent by issuing impugned proceedings dated 20.12.2007. Referring to the various provisions, 2 nd respondent contended that 3 rd respondent has no jurisdiction or authority to issue proceedings dated 26.06.1999. 6 th respondent i.e. District Collector, Hyderabad District is competent authority in terms of Section 3(1) and (2) of the Act, 1956. There is no error in the impugned proceedings dated 26.12.2007. 9. Respondents 8 to 16, 18, 20, 22 to 25 filed counter almost in the same lines as that of the counter filed by 2 nd respondent. However, they have contended that they are the absolute owners of land admeasuring 12056 sq.yards situated in Ward No.6, Block No.6, Hyderabad, out of which, an extent of 9000 sq.yards was declared as slum under the provisions of the Act, 1956. Therefore, they have filed the aforesaid writ petitions, writ appeals etc. As per the said G.Os, the District Collector, is the competent authority and Additional Commissioner, (Development), GHMC is not the competent authority. On consideration of the same, 2 nd respondent issued impugned proceedings dated 20.12.2007. 10. They have further contended that they have filed various cases under AP Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1960 against the writ petitioners seeking eviction. On consideration of the same, 2 nd respondent issued impugned proceedings dated 20.12.2007. 10. They have further contended that they have filed various cases under AP Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1960 against the writ petitioners seeking eviction. Vide proceedings, dated 20.04.1992, the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, allowed the said petitions due to which these respondents are not in a position to take vacant position of the property. The powers have not been conferred on the Additional Commissioner and the 2 nd respondent is well within his powers to pass the impugned proceedings dated 20.12.2007 cancelling the order of the Additional Commissioner. Even as per the aforesaid G.Os., the Additional Commissioner is not the person in whom powers conferred under the Act, 1956. It is further contended that once powers delegated to a particular Officer, he alone is entitled to exercise the said power and therefore, the order of Additional Commissioner is without jurisdiction. Though they are owners of the subject property, they are not in a position to enjoy the subject property as the writ petitioners are squatting over the property without paying rents. With the said submissions, they sought to dismiss the present writ petition. 11. In the light of the aforesaid rival submissions, it is relevant to note that considering the fact that there are number of slum areas in almost every town in the State of the then Andhra Pradesh which are a source of danger to public health and sanitation, under the existing law, it has not been possible to provide for the basic needs of sewerage, water supply, roads and side-drains in these slum areas without causing excessive financial strain on the owners of the land affected. To obviate this difficulty, it is expedient first to acquire the lands in those areas and thereafter to undertake the execution of work designed to improve those areas, the State has enacted the statute called the Act, 1956. 12. Section 2(d) of the Act deals with ‘persons interested’ in relation to any land, includes all persons claiming, or entitled to claim, an interest in the compensation payable on account of the acquisition of that land under this Act, and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land, if he is interested in an easement affecting the land. 13. 13. Section 2(f) of the Act deals with ‘slum area’ means any area declared to be a slum area under sub-section (1) of Section 3. Sections 3 and 4 are also relevant and the same are extracted below:- 3. Power to acquire land – (1) Where the Government are satisfied that any area is or may be a source of danger to the public health, safety or convenience of its neighbourhood by a reason of the area being lowlying, insanitary, squalid or otherwise, they may, by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette declare such area to be a slum area. (2) Where the Government are satisfied that it is necessary to acquire any land in a slum area for the purpose of clearing or improving the area, they may acquire the land by publishing in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette a notice to the effect that they have decided to acquire it in pursuance of this section: Provided that, before publishing such notice the Government shall call upon the owner of, or any other person who, in the opinion of the Government, is interested in, such land to show cause why it should not be acquired; and after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person interested in the land, the Government may pass such orders as they deem fit. Explanation— Cause shown by the person interested in the land may be against the declaration of the area as a slum area under sub-section (1) as well as against the necessity to acquire the land for the purpose of clearing or improving the area. (3) Where a notice as aforesaid is published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, the land shall, on and from the beginning of the day on which the notice is so published, vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. (4) The Government may, by order, authorise any authority or officer subordinate to them to exercise all or any of the powers conferred and perform all or any of the duties imposed on them by this section, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be specified in the order. Section 4. (4) The Government may, by order, authorise any authority or officer subordinate to them to exercise all or any of the powers conferred and perform all or any of the duties imposed on them by this section, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be specified in the order. Section 4. Transfer of land in a slum area by Government – (1) Where any land in a slum area has been acquired under this Act, the Government may either hold the land under their own control and management and undertake the clearance or improvement of the slum area or transfer the land to the municipal corporation or municipal council concerned for the purpose of undertaking the clearance or improvement of the slum area; and in the latter case, the land shall vest in such municipal corporation or municipal council. (2) Where land is transferred under sub-section (1) to a municipal corporation or municipal council, it shall be liable to pay the cost of acquisition of the land or of such portion thereof as the Government may fix in each case. (3) Where the Government hold the land under their own control and management and undertake the clearance or improvement of the slum area, the cost of acquisition shall be borne by the persons to whom the land is allotted in parcels for residence and such cost shall be recoverable from them in such proportion and in such manner as may be prescribed. The said provisions of Act, 1956 and procedure to be followed fell for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.1055 of 1996 . 14. The Division Bench held that declaration of a piece of land as a slum area without affording an opportunity to the person interested as illegal and in violation of the procedure laid down under the Act, 1956. As per Section 3(4) of the Act, the government may, by order, authorise any authority or officer subordinate to them to exercise all or any of the powers conferred and perform all or any of the duties imposed on them by this section, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be specified in the order. 15. As per Section 3(4) of the Act, the government may, by order, authorise any authority or officer subordinate to them to exercise all or any of the powers conferred and perform all or any of the duties imposed on them by this section, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be specified in the order. 15. The government has issued G.O.Ms.No.10 M.A. dated 06.01.1990, authorizing the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to exercise the powers, and perform the functions imposed on the Government under Section 3 (1) and (2) of the Act, 1956 in respect of the areas declared as slum areas in the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. Thereafter, vide G.O.Ms.No.311, MA dated 06.06.1994, the government has authorized the District Collector, Hyderabad, to exercise the said powers. Vide G.O.Ms.No.441 (MA), dated 24.07.1999, government has cancelled G.O.Ms.No.81, M.A. dated 20.02.1995. Thus, G.O.Ms.No.311, MA, dated 06.06.1994 came into operation. vide G.O.Ms.No.441 (MA), dated 24.07.1999, 6 th respondent i.e. District Collector, Hyderabad/Commissioner and Special Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad shall take action accordingly. 16. In the light of the aforesaid scheme of the Act, 1956, as discussed supra, vide order dated 25.07.2006 in W.A.No.795 to 796 of 1996 , the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, modified the impugned order under appeals, allowed the writ petitions, remanded the matter to the competent authority with a direction to proceed with the enquiry from the stage of providing to the petitioners – respondents all relevant information/material upon which it is decided that there is a case to proceed under Section 3 of the Act in respect of the subject land. The said order attained finality. 17. It is relevant to note that the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and Additional Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit II, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, has preferred the said appeals. 18. In compliance with the said order, 3 rd respondent has issued proceedings dated 26.06.1999 declaring the subject property as slum area and directed to issue final notification in terms of Section 3(2) of the Act, 1956. Accordingly, gazette notification dated 02.08.1999 was issued. 19. As discussed supra, as on 26.06.1999, government has issued G.O.Ms.No.81, MA, dated 20.02.1995, keeping G.O.Ms.No.311 MA, dated 06.06.1994 in abeyance. Therefore, the Commissioner, GHMC was the competent authority/notified authority to exercise the powers under Section 3(1) and (2) of the Act, 1956 by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.10 MA dated 06.01.1990. Accordingly, gazette notification dated 02.08.1999 was issued. 19. As discussed supra, as on 26.06.1999, government has issued G.O.Ms.No.81, MA, dated 20.02.1995, keeping G.O.Ms.No.311 MA, dated 06.06.1994 in abeyance. Therefore, the Commissioner, GHMC was the competent authority/notified authority to exercise the powers under Section 3(1) and (2) of the Act, 1956 by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.10 MA dated 06.01.1990. Thereafter, vide G.O.Ms.No.449, MA, dated 24.07.1999 government cancelled G.O.Ms.No.8 MA dated 20.02.1995. By virtue of the said G.O., the District Collector, is the competent authority to exercise the powers under Section 3(1) and (2) of the Act, 1956. Therefore, the Additional Commissioner (Development) MCH, has no power to issue proceedings dated 26.09.1990. The unofficial respondents in their counter referred definition of Commissioner in terms of Section 2(a) of the Act, 1956 etc. But there is no notification or proceedings issued delegating/conferring the said power on the Additional Commissioner (Development) MCH. 20. In the present case, as on 26.06.1999, Commissioner, GHMC is the competent authority to exercise the powers under Section 3(1) (2) of the Act. On consideration of the said aspects only, vide impugned proceedings dated 20.12.2007, 2 nd respondent has cancelled the proceedings dated 26.06.1999 issued by 3 rd respondent. 21. It is apt to note that vide impugned notification dated 20.12.2007 of the 2 nd respondent, government has issued G.O.Ms.No.441 MA, dated 24.07.1999 cancelling G.O.Ms.81 (MA), dated 20.02.1995. Therefore, vide proceedings dated 20.12.2007, 2 nd respondent directed 6 th respondent to issue fresh notice and conduct enquiry in terms of Act, 1956. There is no error in it. 22. It is relevant to note that there is delay in issuing the impugned proceedings dated 20.12.2007. There is no explanation with regard to the said delay. However, there is reference to an appeal filed by unofficial respondents and it is with regard to jurisdiction of 3 rd respondent to exercise the powers under Section 3(1)(2) of the Act. Therefore, on the ground of delay, this Court cannot held the proceedings dated 20.12.2007 of 2 nd respondent as illegal. As on the date of 26.06.1999, 3 rd respondent has no authority to declare the subject property as ‘slum area’ in terms under Section 3(1)(2) of the Act. Therefore, the said proceedings dated 26.06.1999 are illegal. Therefore, 2 nd respondent has cancelled the said proceedings vide impugned proceedings dated 20.12.2007. Thus, there is no irregularity in the impugned proceedings. As on the date of 26.06.1999, 3 rd respondent has no authority to declare the subject property as ‘slum area’ in terms under Section 3(1)(2) of the Act. Therefore, the said proceedings dated 26.06.1999 are illegal. Therefore, 2 nd respondent has cancelled the said proceedings vide impugned proceedings dated 20.12.2007. Thus, there is no irregularity in the impugned proceedings. The petitioners cannot contend that the said proceedings dated 20.12.2007 are without notice to them. 23. As discussed supra, as on today, 6 th respondent is the competent authority to exercise powers under Section 3(1)(2) of the Act, 1956. Therefore, he has to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, in compliance with the order dated 25.07.1999 in W.A.No.795 to 799 of 1996. 24. As discussed supra, the petitioners are claiming that they are in possession of the subject property since several decades. The unofficial respondents are claiming that they are the absolute owners of the subject property. They have already filed applications under Rent Control Act, seeking eviction of the petitioners and the same were allowed. Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed writ petitions/writ appeals and the same are pending. Therefore, both the petitioners and unofficial respondents are claiming that they are the interested parties. Therefore, 6 th respondent has to necessarily follow the procedure laid down under the Act, by putting the petitioners, 2 nd respondent-GHMC and respondents 3 to 25 on notice and affording them an opportunity. He has to satisfy himself with regard to the conditions prevailing in the locality. He has to consider the possession of the petitioners over the subject property. However, he shall complete the said enquiry, pass a reasoned order and communicate a copy of the said order to the petitioners, 2 nd respondent and respondents 3 to 25. 25. The contempt case is filed alleging wilful and deliberate violation of the order dated 22.01.2016 in WVMP No.1950 of 2015 in WPMP No.9306 of 2008 in WP No.7088 of 2008. Vide the aforesaid order, this Court directed the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to subject property. According to the petitioners, in the contempt case, writ petitioners have not followed the said order and they have deliberately and willfully violated the said order. 26. Respondent No.2 filed counter contending that they have already issued notices and passed orders in terms of Section 636 of the Act. According to the petitioners, in the contempt case, writ petitioners have not followed the said order and they have deliberately and willfully violated the said order. 26. Respondent No.2 filed counter contending that they have already issued notices and passed orders in terms of Section 636 of the Act. They will also demolish the subject property. The same was disputed by the petitioners in the contempt case. Therefore, vide order dated 09.03.2001 in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in C.C.No.180 of 2021, this Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner who in turn submitted report holding that there are no demolitions. 27. Therefore, Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s. Bharadwaj Associates appearing for petitioners in C.C.No.180 of 2021 fairly submits that the petitioners in the contempt case are not interested in pressing the contempt and punish the respondents and the competent authority has to conclude the enquiry in terms of the Act. 28. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is disposed of. Proceedings dated 20.12.2007 of 2 nd respondent/GHMC are set aside. 6 th respondent is directed to conclude enquiry in terms of Section 3(1)(2) of the Act in compliance with the order dated 25.07.1996 in W.A.Nos.795 to 799 of 1996, by following the procedure laid down under the Act, by putting the petitioners, 2 nd respondent-GHMC and respondents 3 to 25 on notice and affording them an opportunity. He has to satisfy himself with regard to the conditions prevailing in the locality and also possession of the petitioners over the subject property. However, he shall complete the said enquiry within 06 (six) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, pass a reasoned order and communicate a copy of the said order to the petitioners, 2 nd respondent and respondents 3 to 25. 29. In view of the said directions in W.P.No.7088 of 2008, this contempt case is closed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the present writ petition and contempt case shall standclosed.