Incumbent AP State Government to grab lands in Kadapa area to grant them as house sites. This PIL challenged that decision.
Month: May 2020
Pemmadi Suribabu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh
Incumbent AP State Government to grab lands in Kakinada Mangrove forest area to construct homes. This PIL challenged that decision.
On 27-04-2020,
On 04-05-2020,
On 22-05-2020,
A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YSRC Party are here.
Extension of Reservations to Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) – Constitutional Amendments
Here is the small listing of Amendments made to Constitution of India to provide and continue the Reservations to Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in India.
| 8 | 79 | 1959 | Monday, November 16, 1959 | The Constitution (Eighth Amendment) Act, 1959 | Tuesday, January 5, 1960 | Tuesday, January 5, 1960 | “ten years” became “twenty years” |
| 23 | 78 | 1969 | Thursday, August 21, 1969 | The Constitution (Twenty-third Amendment) Act, 1969 | Friday, January 23, 1970 | “twenty years” became “thirty years” | |
| 45 | 1 | 1980 | Wednesday, January 16, 1980 | THE CONSTITUTION (Forty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1980 | Monday, April 14, 1980 | Friday, January 25, 1980 | “thirty years” became “forty years” |
| 62 | 129 | 1988 | Tuesday, December 13, 1988 | The Constitution (Sixty-second Amendment) Act, 1989 | Thursday, December 15, 1988 | Tuesday, March 28, 1989 | “forty years” became “fifty years” |
| 79 | Thursday, October 21, 1999 | The Constitution (Seventy-ninth Amendment) Act, 2000 | Friday, January 21, 2000 | Tuesday, January 25, 2000 | “fifty years” became “sixty years” | ||
| 95 | The Constitution (Ninety-fifth Amendment) Act, 2009 | Monday, January 18, 2010 | Monday, January 25, 2010 | “sixty years” became “seventy years” | |||
| 104 | 371 | 2019 | Monday, December 9, 2019 | The Constitution (One Hundred and Fourth Amendment) Act, 2019 | Tuesday, January 21, 2020 | Saturday, January 25, 2020 | “seventy years” became “eighty years |
Bhusekharana Land Pooling Raitu Kooli Nirvasithula Sankshema Sangam Vs State of AP on 23 March 2020
Incumbent State Government is leaving no stone unturned to grab the land given up by the farmers of Capital region. So many Prima facie violations are highlighted by the Full Bench of AP High Court in this Order.
Hence, we find that it is a fit case to direct the respondents not to take possession of the subject lands pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.72 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dated 25.01.2020 during pendency of this writ petition.
Mokhamatam Veeraiah Vs State of AP on 20 April 2020
Farmers were called to attend a video conference via a SMS message with a short notice, regd their objections for framing of CRDA Zone Regulations. AP High Court extended the time for hearing objections until 30 May 2020 and directed the State government that, Regulations Shall not be finalized without considering the objections.
RE Vijay Kurle and Ors on 04 May 2020
Supreme Court has rejected all of the interim application filed by the contemnors and held that they have no valid grounds to entertain the interim applications challenging the very judgment itself and for recalling of judgment.
Giribabu Marthi Vs Union of India on 15 April 2020
A practicing Advocate at AP High Court has prayed for arrangement of Rs 1 lakh interest free personal loan per advocate, to be repayable in 10 EMIs, after the situation become corona free. Notice was issued as under.
Azra Ismail Vs UT of Jammu and Kashmir on 05 May 2020
High Court of Jammu and Kashmir has given a detailed analysis and conclusions (and limitations it has to implement the conclusions itself) on a 148-year old tradition in Jammu and Kashmir called as Darbar Move. More details here.
Avala Nanda Kishore Vs State of AP on 23 March 2020
AP High Court held as follows:
From Para 28,
Therefore, the Government has no authority or power to alienate the land that vested on the Government which deemed to have transferred to the authority, issuance of G.O.Ms.No.571 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department dated 14.09.2012, G.O.Ms.No.367 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department dated 19.08.2019 and G.O.Ms.No.107 MA & UD (CRDA) Department dated 25.02.2020 for alienation of the lands by the Government, is prima facie contrary to the statute provisions.
From Para 32,
Any allotment of land or grant of other form of largesse by the State or its agencies/instrumentalities by treating the exercise as a private venture is liable to be treated as arbitrary, discriminatory and an act of favoritism and/or nepotism violating the soul of the equality clause embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution.
From Para 40 (Read carefully)
40) The land that can be made available under the Land Pooling Scheme can also be identified for alienation of the land to the Below Poverty Line people. But, there is a difference between grant of patta under B.S.O. 21 and alienation as per G.O.Ms.No.367 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department dated 19.08.2019 and G.O.Ms.No.107 MA & UD (CRDA) Department dated 25.02.2020. The alienation cannot be equated with an assignment under B.S.O 21. When once the Government proposes to alienate the land by executing a deed of conveyance, collecting registration fee and stamp duty, with a clause permitting them to alienate the same after five years, creates any amount of suspicion prima facie and it is far from fair disposal of the land. If the Government intends to alienate the Government land, which is within its domain, the procedure laid down in various judgments referred above is to be followed. Instead of following such procedure, the State invented a separate procedure of alienation by executing a deed of conveyance permitting the beneficiaries to alienate the property after five years by collecting the stamp duty and registration fee. Hence, the procedure being adopted by the State for alienation of the Government largesse is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments referred above prima facie. On the other hand, the State has no power of disposal of the land that vested in it, in view of Section 130 of the Act, 2014, though the lands are vested in it under Section 57(2) of the Act. Therefore, we find prima facie that the State has no power to dispose of the land that vested in it under Section 57(2) of the Act, prima facie, and that the procedure being adopted by the State Government for alienation of the land in the guise of ‘Navaratnalu – Pedalandariki Illu’ flagship programme which is one of the promises in the political manifesto of the party in power, by executing deed of conveyance giving relaxations, and collecting Rs.20/- (Rs.10/- towards cost of stamp paper and Rs.10/ towards lamination charges from the beneficiary, with a clause permitting them to alienate the land after expiry of five years is prima facie contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments.
There are lot more prima facie contraries identified by High Court. Read it for your self.
Citations: [
Other Source links:
