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.
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.
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.
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:
Issue of collecting parking fee from the vehicles in Multiplex Malls and other commercial complexes is resolved.
Citations: [
Other Source links:
Finally, a separate High Court was formed for the State of Andhra Pradesh by the following gazette notification by the President of India. This started functioning from 01 January 2019 at Nelapadu, Amaravati, the capital city of Sunrise State, Andhra Pradesh
All High Courts here.
Here is a small time line on the events
On 13-Sep-2019
An expert committee was constituted (through G.O.Rt. No. 585 dated September 13, 2019) for reviewing the development strategy for Capital city (Amaravati).
Here is the GO constituting the GN Rao Expert Committee
Here are the terms and conditions for the Expert Committee
Appointment of Brig. Dr. P Raj Kumar as consultant to the Expert Committee
On 14-Nov-2019
The High Court on Thursday admitted and posted to November 28 a writ petition filed by a couple of farmers belonging to Borupalem village in Thullur mandal of Guntur district with the plea to declare the constitution of an expert committee (through G.O.Rt. No. 585 dated September 13, 2019) for reviewing the development strategy for Capital city (Amaravati) as arbitrary, illegal, ultra vires and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority (APCRDA) Act, 2014 and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The government abruptly stopped the construction activity in the entire Capital city area, including the construction of the High Court building, the roads and other infrastructure works without giving or assigning any reason, they mentioned in their petition.
News source here.
On 09-Dec-2019
Rajadhani Rytu Parirakshana Samithi files a PIL WP(PIL) 179/2019 which challenges G O Rt No 585 Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department dated 13-09-2019.
The drama unfolded on 17-Dec-2019 (On record, Officially; Preparations started way before that date)
*Andhra Pradesh Have Three Capitals, CM Jagan Announced In Assembly*
https://english.sakshi.com/andhrapradesh/2019/12/17/ap-may-have-3-capitals-to-ensure-decentralisation-cm
https://epaper.sakshi.com/2468958/Andhra-Pradesh/18-12-2019#page/1/1
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/andhra-pradesh-ys-jagan-mohan-reddy-three-capitals-amaravati-ysrcp-1629174-2019-12-17
https://www.livemint.com/news/india/-decentralised-administration-andhra-may-have-three-capitals-says-cm-jagan-11576603472552.html
On 03-01-2020,
Boston Consulting Group submits it’s report on the concept of decentralized development for the State of Andhra Pradesh.
On 11-01-2020 and 12-01-2020,
Farmer and villagers around Amaravati region started peaceful agitation. Police (under the Order of yours truly) assaulted them violently.
News source here.
On 13-01-2020,
AP High Court took Suo moto cognizance of this events and initiated a WP(PIL) 3/2020, the prayer of which is as follows:
In the light of the news items published in Eenadu Telugu daily news papers dated 12 01 2020 and 13 01 2020 that the general public and the ryots in the State of Andhra Pradesh and particularly in and around Vijayawada Mandadam Tullur Vijayawada of Krishna and Guntur districts are agitating peacefully by way of dharna rasta roko and public meetings in protest against the proposal of the Government of Andhra Pradesh to shift the State capital from Amavaravati to a different place that the ryots and women have also been participating in large number and that in order to control and curb such agitations the Police are allegedly resorting to coming down heavily upon the agitators and that the Police particularly men police have resorted to take the agitators into custody and further that the Police particularly men police have also handled misbehaved and touched the women agitators indecently and also even preventing them to go the temples thereby violating human rights fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and atrocities particularly against women citizens and therefore it is prayed that this Hon’ble High Court may issue a writ in the nature of mandamus calling for the records and remarks from the Respondents herein in this regard and to take appropriate action against the Respondents for the indecent behaviour of the Police on the agitators particularly the women agitators and to issue further orders / directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper.
Current Status: Next date not given; PENDING.
News source here.
MORE PILs
WP(PIL) 4/2020
WP(PIL) 5/2020
WP(PIL) 7/2020
WP(PIL) 8/2020
WP(PIL) 9/2020
WP(PIL) 15/2020
WP(PIL) 22/2020
WP(PIL) 70/2020
WP(PIL) 72/2020:
WP(PIL) 73/2020:
WP(PIL) 73/2020:
On 17-01-2020,
High Power Committee submitted it’s report on 17-01-2020 supporting 3-Capital proposal.
On 20-01-2020,
The following Bills were introduced by Government Ministers in Assembly and were passed late in the night, on the strength of 151 MLAs
The following GO is issued
On 21-01-2020,
On 22-01-2020,
The ‘Andhra Pradesh Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of All Regions Bill, 2020’ was stalled in the Upper House/Legislative Council and passed a resolution to refer the bills for the select committee.
News source here.
Planning department – Hiring of services of Sri Mukul Rohatgi, Senior legal Counsel and former Attorney General of India to defend the case filed in the High Court relating to the Capital issue against the Government – Sanction of Rs.1.00 crore as an advance – Accorded – Orders – Issued
Funds released
Related PIL: WP(PIL) 23/2020
On 31-01-2020,
From Para 76,
76) In view of our foregoing discussion, the act of the Executive Authority of the State in issuing G.O.Ms.No.13 General Administration (SC.F) Department dated 31.01.2020 proposing to shift the office of Vigilance Commissioner and Chairman of Commissionerate of Inquiries and also offices of the Member(s) Commissioner of Inquiries from Interim Government Complex, Velagapudi to Kurnool is not only prima facie mala fide, unreasonable and irrational, but also contrary to Section 39 of the CRDA Act. Hence, we find prima facie case in favour of the petitioners, balance of convenience is also tilting in their favour, hence it is a fit case to suspend G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 31.01.2020 as the said order came to be issued contrary to the Statute and is tainted by mala fides. Accordingly, the question as posed is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
On 10-03-2020,
WP(PIL) 64/2020 was filed and on 23-03-2020, Order was passed staying the GO.Ms. No 72 of 2020 dated 25.01.2020 here.
On 23-03-2020,
WP(PIL) 24/2020: Lot of things challenged here. AP High Court passed a common Order here.
On 14-04-2020,
WP(PIL) 92/2020 was filed and 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. Last Order is here.
AP High Court has set aside G.O.Ms.No.81, School Education (Prog.I) Department, dated 05.11.2019 and G.O.Ms.No.85, School Education (Prog.I) Department, dated 20.11.2019.
Citations: [
Other Source links:
To attack this judgment, AP Government took this step here.
Disclaimer:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in or Government websites.
I have no control to remove copies of this document(s) that may be available on websites of High Courts or Supreme Court of India or any of the many other sites, law journal or reporters which carry the same judgment in it’s entirety, not I can remove references/links to this document(s) from the results of Search Engines such as Google.com.
In this case, it was held that, DVC is maintainble even after Divorce.
Citations: [
Other Source links:
Disclaimer:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
I have no control to remove copies of this document(s) that may be available on websites of High Courts or Supreme Court of India or any of the many other sites, law journal or reporters which carry the same judgment in it’s entirety, not I can remove references/links to this document(s) from the results of Search Engines such as Google.com.
Smt Justice Sri Devi had passed a Quash order on the false and malicious proceedings which were initiated u/s 498 IPC and others under the ground that there are no specific details in the Charge Sheet to bring home the allegations also because Assistant Government Pleader did not obtain sanction from Central Government to ask the Magistrate to take cognizance of this case.
Citations:
Other Source links:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Bad Behavior has blocked 1375 access attempts in the last 7 days.
