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.
Avala Nanda Kishore Vs State of AP on 23 March 2020Citations: [
Other Source links:
