Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Amaravati Rajadhani Sameekarana ... vs The State Of Ap on 11 November, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE No.: W.P.Nos.35986, 34566 & 34616 OF 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
S.No
DATE ORDER
. 11.11.2022
UDPR, J & TMR, J
Heard further arguments of learned
Additional Advocate General and learned Standing
Counsel for Respondents No. 2 and 3.
Learned Additional Advocate General seeks
a week's time for filing counter in IAs, so that
needful can be done by the respondents.
The petitioners would contend that by virtue
of the amendment, the rights of the petitioners who
sacrificed their lands will be affected drastically ie.,
as per the agreement they have to be allotted the
plots first, on priority basis, by the Capital Region
Development Authority ie., Respondents No.2 & 3
and then only, other activities can be taken up.
However, by virtue of the amendment sought to be
brought forth, the respondents are trying to allot the
sites to 3rd parties in violation of law and agreement,
which is against the spirit of the judgment in
WP.No.13203 of 2021. Learned counsel for the
petitioners referred to para 353 of the said
judgment. It is submitted, if the amendment is
implemented by way of allotment of the sites in the
zones, their rights would be adversely affected
besides matter leading to multiplicity of proceedings
and therefore, in all the IAs ie., I.A.No.02 of 2022 in
WP.No.34566 of 2022, IA.No.03 of 2022 in
WP.No.35986 of 2022 and IA.Nos. 4 & 5 of 2022 in
WP.No.34614 of 2022, a direction may be given to
the respondents to maintain status-quo of the
amendments to the Master Plan, notified under the
APCRDA Act, pending disposal of the Writ
Petitions.
Learned Additional Advocate General and
also learned Standing Counsel would submit that if
the relief sought for in the Interim Applications is
granted, it would amount to staying the amendment.
They relied upon citations in Karnataka Bank Ltd.,
Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others,1 and
Health for Millions Vs. Union of India and
Others2, to argue that there is a presumption in
favour of validity of legislation.
As could be seen, in the Writ Petition
No.35986 of 2022, the prayer is to declare the
Sections 1 and 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Capital
Region Development Authority and the Andhra
Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban
Development Authorities (Amendment) Act, 2022
ie., Act No.13 of 2022 as being illegal, arbitrary and
violative of Articles 14, 21, 300-A Part-IX and Part
IX-A of the Constitution of India besides lacking
legislative competence and consequently to set
aside the same.
(b) To declare the action of the respondent in
2008 (2) SCC 254
2014 (14) SCC 496
venturing to validate Andhra Pradesh Gazette
bearing No.355 dated 10.3.2020 as being illegal,
arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21, 300-A Part-
IX and Part IX-A of the Constitution of India and
consequently to set aside the same.
(c ) To declare the Andhra Pradesh Gazette
bearing No. 1410 dated 28.10.2022 as being
illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21, 300-
A Part-IX and Part IX-A of the Constitution of India
and consequently to set aside the same.
In Writ Petitions No. 34566 and 34614 of
2022, similar prayers have been made.
The respondents would vehemently contend
that the proposed amendments are well within the
ambit of their legislative competence and also will
not affect the rights of the parties
Be that as it may, now, the submission of the
petitioners is that by virtue of the amendment
brought to the Parent Act, the respondents are
trying to allot/alienate the sites, without first allotting
to the petitioners and other land givers as per the
agreement and if they are allowed to do so, the
very purpose of giving land will be nullified and
also the spirit of the judgment in WP.No.13203 of
2021 will be defeated.
Be that as it may, on enquiry, the learned
would submit that approximately 1,660 Acers of the
land has to be demarcated for implementing the
proposed amendment and for distribution to the
homeless poor. It is further informed to this court
that before proposed allotment, the Master Plan is
required to be modified and in that regard, already
objections of all the concerned are called for, and
today ie., 11.11.2022, is the last date for receiving
objections. Thereafter, the objections have to be
scrutinized and further action has to be taken. On
a further enquiry of the court, learned Standing
Counsel as well as the learned Additional Advocate
General would submit that the scrutiny of the
objections would take atleast a minimum of four
weeks and thereafter, basing on the decision
against the objections a Gazettee Notification has
to be issued by the Government on the requisition
of the Capital Region Development Authority, and
thereafter only, allotment of sites will take place.
Having regard to the above submission by
learned Additional Advocate General and learned
Standing Counsel across the Bar on behalf of
respondents, we believe, there is no immediate
chance of allotment of the sites to any third parties
before four weeks. Hence, the apprehension of
learned counsels for petitioners that the matter
leads to multiplicity of proceedings is not imminent.
In that view, the Registry shall list the matter on
23.11.2022.
In the meanwhile, the respondents have to
file their counters in I.A.No.02 of 2022 in
WP.No.34566 of 2022, IA.No.03 of 2022 in
WP.No.35986 of 2022 and IA.Nos. 4 & 5 of 2022 in
WP.No.34614 of 2022 and the petitioners may also
file their rejoinders. However, in the meanwhile, if
any drastic steps of amending Master Plan or
allotment of the subject sites take place as
apprehended by the petitioners, they can move the
Court for suitable orders.
List on 23.11.2022.
___________
UDPR,J
___________
TMR,J
PA.
