4 Sep 2023 4:47 AM GMT
The Supreme Court on September 1 issued notice to the Neerukonda and Kuragallu Farmers Welfare Association (respondent) in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by State of Andhra Pradesh (petitioner) assailing an order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that stayed further construction of houses for the economically weaker sections in R-5 Zone of the capital city of Amaravati.
The matter was heard by a Division Bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Pankaj Mithal.
In the instant case, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a Government Order (GO) dated 31-03-2023 wherein, the Commissioner Capital Region Development Authority (CRDA) was permitted to hand over 1134.58 acres of land to the District Collectors of Guntur and Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao Garu Districts (NTR Districts) to provide house sites to the beneficiaries of EWS of the society. Basing this, the State Government planned to construct houses for the Economically Weaker Sections of the Society in the plots allotted to the beneficiaries.
However, a group of farmers, the Neerukonda and Kuragallu Farmers Welfare Association, filed applications seeking to stop the State from proceeding with the construction of houses for the poor people in, what is now termed as, R5 zone of the capital city of Amaravati.
It was contended by the respondent that the lands in Land Pooling Scheme (LPS) framed under Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014 (APCRDA Act) could only be used for the benefit of the farmers and others in that area and that outsiders could not be inducted. Further, the State and the CRDA were directed to discharge their duties under Schedule II and III of LPS Rules, 2015 (LPS Rules) and were also directed not to alienate, mortgage or create any third-party interest on the lands pooled, except for construction of capital city or development of the capital region. Moreover, the CRDS had no authority to transfer the land, as for the sale allotment to be completed the sale consideration was needed to be paid in full.
In this backdrop, the High Court opined that Schedule II and III of the LPS Rules would prima facie indicate that the construction of houses of EWS would be only in relation to the people who were residents and would not apply to people from outside. The Court observed that the right to life and livelihood of farmers were involved in these matters and the question of inducting people from outside the district was a debatable issue.
Moving forward, the Court also opined that if the construction was completed it would be a fait accompli and the loss would be irreparable. Thus, balance of convenience was in favour of maintaining the status quo with respect to the houses also till the final judicial orders were passed.
In view of the same, the Court, while observing that permitting further construction would not be proper or justifiable in the present circumstances, allowed the applications and ordered interim stay on the constructions.
Courtroom Exchange
At the commencement of the hearing, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the petitioner, pressed upon the seriousness of the matter.
However, the Bench made it clear that it is not inclined to stay the operation but issued notice.
At this, Dr Singhvi averred for the stay and started to submit the reasons for the same. Justice Sanjiv Khanna interjected him saying that the order passed by the High Court is a lengthy and a reasoned one thus, Bench needs time to go through the same.
Singhvi argued that this construction is part of a Central Government project (Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY)). Justice Sanjiv Khanna replied that there are two to three issues that requires consideration. “One is the payment has not yet been made to the landowners…Number two is that probably the expenses involved in the construction is one thousand crores…once we spend the amount then we are faced with fait accompli.”
Notwithstanding, Singhvi persistently tried convincing the Bench. At this, Justice Khanna, in a lighter vein, replied, “You can’t succeed on the first day…wait for some time,” and issued notice.
Case Title: The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Neerukonda and Kuragallu Farmers Welfare Association.