Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Unknown vs Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Prashant ... on 5 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2023 in W.P.No.8331 of 2023
I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.8347 of 2023
I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.8348 of 2023
I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2023 in W.P.No.8374 of 2023
I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2023 in W.P.No.8620 of 2023
I.A.Nos.1, 2 & 3 of 2023 in W.P.No.8884 of 2023
I.A.Nos.1, 2 & 3 of 2023 in W.P.No.9507 of 2023
and
I.A.Nos.1, 2 & 3 of 2023 in W.P.No.10102 of 2023
COMMON ORDER
Dt.05.05.2023
(Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
This order shall govern disposal of I.As., seeking interim relief in
this batch of writ petitions.
2. W.P.No.8331 of 2023, which is taken as the lead case in the
batch, has called in question the validity of G.O.Ms.No.45 Municipal
Administration and Urban Development (CRDA.2) Department dated
31.03.2023, as being arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires of the Andhra
Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014 ("the CRDA
Act", for brevity).
3. Challenge is also made to the Gazette Notification No.337
Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department (APCRDA)
2 HCJ & RNT,J
I.As. in
W.P.No.8331 of 2023 & batch
dated 21.03.2023, regarding modifications made to the detailed Master
Plan of Capital City - Amaravati, notified vide Gazette Notification
No.18 dated 23.02.2016.
4. By G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 31.03.2023, the Government, in
pursuance of Regulation No.6.5.3 of Amaravati Land Allotment
Regulations, 2017 ("the 2017 Regulations", for brevity) issued vide
G.O.Ms.No.229, MA&UD (CRDA.2) Department dated 15.06.2017,
accorded permission to the Commissioner, APCRDA to (i) place the
matter before the authority for revising the reserve price for providing
house-sites to the beneficiaries of Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)
as requested by the Revenue Department and (ii) to handover the said
lands to an extent of Ac.550.65 cents and Ac.583.93 cents, totalling
Ac.1134.58 cents, to the District Collectors of Guntur and NTR Districts
respectively pending finalization of the Reserve Price and receipt of the
payment, as requested by the Revenue Department.
5. In I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.8331 of 2023, I.A.No.1 of 2023 in
W.P.No.8347 of 2023, I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.8348 of 2021,
I.A.No.2 of 2023 in W.P.No.8374 of 2023, I.A.No.1 of 2023 in
W.P.No.8620 of 2023, I.A.No.2 of 2023 in W.P.No.8884 of 2023,
I.A.No.2 of 2023 in W.P.No.9507 of 2023 and I.A.No.1 of 2023 in
3 HCJ & RNT,J
I.As. in
W.P.No.8331 of 2023 & batch
W.P.No.10102 of 2023, prayer is made to suspend the operation of
G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 31.03.2023.
6. In I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.8884 of 2023, I.A.No.1 of 2023 in
W.P.No.9507 of 2023 and I.A.No.2 of 2023 in W.P.No.10102 of 2023,
prayer is made to suspend the Gazette Notification No.337 dated
21.03.2023.
7. In I.A.No.2 of 2023 in W.P.No.8331 of 2023, I.A.No.2 of 2023 in
W.P.No.8374 of 2023, I.A.No.2 of 2023 in W.P.No.8620 of 2023,
I.A.No.3 of 2023 in W.P.No.8884 of 2023, I.A.No.3 of 2023 in
W.P.No.9507 of 2023, prayer is made to direct the respondents not to
allot any house-sites to the EWS in the Capital City area until
infrastructure is developed in accordance with Land Pooling Scheme.
In I.A.No.3 of 2023 in W.P.No.10102 of 2023, prayer is made to direct
the respondents not to alienate the lands surrendered under the Land
Pooling Scheme.
8. Mr. Devadatt Kamat, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. Sai Sanjay Suraneni, learned counsel; Mr. V.S.R. Anjaneyulu,
learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Karumanchi Indraneel Babu,
learned counsel; Ms. Jyothi Ratna Anumolu and Ms. S. Pranathi,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the respective
4 HCJ & RNT,J
I.As. in
W.P.No.8331 of 2023 & batch
petitions, would submit that the respondents have sought to disturb
the prevailing status quo in an attempt to outreach the binding
judgment of the Full Bench of this Court dated 03.03.2022 passed in
W.P.Nos.13203 of 2020 and batch - Amaravathi Parirakshna Samithi of
A.P. and Others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others (hereinafter
referred as "the Full Bench judgment"). They would refer to
paragraphs 222 to 232 of the said judgment, which emphasized the
importance of the promises made by the State in the Master Plan,
holding that development of the nine (9) cities including the electronic
city is a statutory promise, which cannot be denied by the State. They
would submit that G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 31.03.2023 has allowed
handing over Ac.1134.58 cents of land to the District Collectors of
Guntur and NTR Districts out of the area earmarked for development of
electronic city, without realizing that this would affect the very heart
and soul of the capital area development. Referring to direction No.2
issued in the Full Bench judgment, it is argued that the State and
APCRDA have been directed not to alienate/mortgage or create any
third party interest on the land pooled, except for the construction of
capital city or development of capital region, which has not been
stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 28.11.2022
passed in S.L.P. (Civil) Diary No.24371/2022. Therefore, the impugned
5 HCJ & RNT,J
I.As. in
W.P.No.8331 of 2023 & batch
G.O., violates the mandamus or the continuous mandamus issued by
this Court. It is argued that allotment of the aforesaid extent of land to
private persons which is earmarked for development of electronic city
is, ex facie, in the teeth of the continuous mandamus; as such, the
impugned G.O. deserves to be set aside. It is further argued that if the
impugned notification and G.O. are given effect, almost 1/3rd of the
electronic city will be shelved, violating the concept of nine (9) cities
including the electronic city, which is a core feature of the Amaravati
Master Plan. It is vehemently put forth that the issue is ultimately to
be taken up by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the State should not
demonstrate such urgency to create third party interest.
9. It is further argued by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioners that vide interim order dated 23.03.2020 in W.P. (PIL)
No.42 of 2020 and W.P.No.5140 of 2020, this Court had observed that
there is no imminent urgency since the land continues to be available
and except the intention to fulfil the promise in the election manifesto,
there is no urgency in the matter. Thus, finding balance of
convenience in favour of the petitioners, earlier G.O.Ms.No.107 MA &
UD (CRDA) Department dated 25.02.2020 and G.O.Ms.No.44 dated
12.02.2020 were stayed and eventually those G.Os., were quashed. It
is next argued that the State has not handed over the 5000 housing
6 HCJ & RNT,J
I.As. in
W.P.No.8331 of 2023 & batch
units that they had developed over the last four years, to the already
identified beneficiaries; therefore, there shall be no urgency for the
present allotment. If the respondents are allowed to allot house-sites
as proposed in the impugned G.O., it will permanently alter the
character of the land pooled by the petitioners and will create an
irreversible situation, defeating the Full Bench judgment.
10. Per contra, Mr. P. Sudhakara Reddy, learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the State and Mr. Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy,
learned standing counsel for APCRDA, would submit that in the detailed
Master Plan of Capital City - Amaravati, prepared earlier, no zone for
EWS was created despite there being statutory mandate under Section
53(1)(d) of the APRCDA Act read with Form - 9.3 and Form - 9.4 of
the Andhra Pradesh Capital City Land Pooling Scheme (Formulation and
Implementation) Rules, 2015 ("the LPS Rules", for brevity). Therefore,
the State amended the Master Plan to create R-5 Zone reserving land
for allotment to EWS and in furtherance thereof, G.O. has been issued
in compliance of the statutory duties obligated to the State under the
APCRDA Act and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder.
According to the learned Additional Advocate General, direction Nos.1
and 2 of the Full Bench judgment clearly permit the Government to
proceed with construction of capital city or development
7 HCJ & RNT,J
I.As. in
W.P.No.8331 of 2023 & batch
of capital region. Therefore, it is the duty of the State Government to
give effect to the continuous mandamus issued by the Full Bench,
which has not been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He would
submit that while quashing G.O.Ms.No.107 dated 25.02.2020, the Full
Bench observed that amendments in the Master Plan were initiated
without there being any proposal from the local authority; however,
since after the amendment in the Act, the State Government has also
been authorized to amend the Master Plan suo motu. Thus, the very
basis of the judgment quashing G.O.Ms.No.107 dated 25.02.2020, has
been effaced and presently there is no statutory bar for modifications
of the Master Plan and issuance of G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 31.03.2023.
He would submit that balance of convenience lies in allowing the State
to allot lands to the members of economically weaker sections and
those living below poverty line; therefore, there is absolutely no ground
for staying the operation of the impugned G.O. In respect of allotment
of 5000 housing units developed over the last four years, learned
Additional Advocate General would submit that the said allotment was
for persons who are having income less than Rs.3 lakh per annum, on
subsidy, with Central and State assistance. Nevertheless, despite that,
each person has to pay Rs.1.5 lakh or more depending upon the size of
the plot for availing benefit of the scheme. However, in the case on
8 HCJ & RNT,J
I.As. in
W.P.No.8331 of 2023 & batch
hand, allotment would be absolutely free of cost to the persons living
below poverty line. Therefore, earlier allotment of 5000 housing units
has got no bearing on the subject allotment of house-sites. He would
submit that allotment of lands to the poor should not be stayed, more
so, when the said action of the Government is in furtherance of its
Constitutional duty for providing shelter to the deprived class of
citizenry, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar v.
Union of India and others - (2019) 2 SCC 636.
11. The main plank of arguments raised by the writ petitioners
revolves around the mandamus issued by this Court in direction No.2 in
the Full Bench judgment and the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has not stayed the said direction and the matter is pending before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
12. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General also
argues that the State has issued the impugned G.O. in compliance of
the said mandamus issued by this Court in the Full Bench judgment.
He would submit that this Court specifically permitted construction of
capital city or development of capital region as one of the activities and
the same having not been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is
the duty of the State to develop the capital city by providing house-
sites to the poor.
9 HCJ & RNT,J
I.As. in
W.P.No.8331 of 2023 & batch
13. It seems, in the earlier Master Plan, no specific area was
reserved for allotment of house-sites to EWS. It is informed to this
Court that the area earmarked for electronic city has been reserved for
the State Government for allotment and no part of this area will be
covered under the layouts for LPS allotment.
14. It is to be noticed that petitioners do not have direct involvement
in the area which is now sought to be allotted for house-sites to the
EWS. It is the area reserved for electronic city. The issue as to
whether the nine (9) cities would remain intact for development of
capital is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since the
petitioners do not have any right for allotment of developed plots in the
area earmarked for electronic city, they would not be directly affected if
the subject allotment is made by the State Government. Petitioners'
contention that since they have pooled their lands for development of
capital city, which includes electronic city, any violation of the core of
the electronic city would tantamount to violation of their rights, is the
matter under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
pending S.L.P. However, since in the order dated 28.11.2022 passed in
S.L.P. (Civil) Diary No.24371/2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not
stayed direction No.2 of the Full Bench judgment and the same
includes permission to the State Government to carryout construction
10 HCJ & RNT,J
I.As. in
W.P.No.8331 of 2023 & batch
of capital city or development of capital region, which includes
development of all sections of the society including EWS and persons
living below poverty line, this Court is not inclined to grant interim relief
as sought by the petitioners, which would otherwise be in violation of
judicial propriety as long as the matter is pending before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the interpretation of the interim order dated
28.11.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is involved in the
matter.
15. Accordingly, all the interlocutory applications are dismissed.
However, it is observed that implementation of the said G.O. and the
consequent allotment of house-sites to the EWS shall be subject to the
outcome of the writ petitions.
Sd/- Sd/-
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
MRR
