The inclusion of areas in an urban development authority under the Andhra Pradesh (Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities) Act, 2016 (Act 5 of 2016) must be in accordance with the criteria and procedures specified in the Act, including demonstrating that the areas meet the definition of an urban area or metropolitan region and consulting with the stakeholders.

ORDER :

D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.

TO URBANIZE OR NOT TO URBANIZE IS THE QUESTION FACING THESE "HAMLETS."

1. The petitioners before this Court are questioning the inclusion of their hamlets/villages in the Godavari Urban Development Authority.

2. This writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing. This Court initially granted an interim order. The respondents-State filed its counters; vacate stay and wanted the matter heard on a priority.

3. Accordingly, this Court has heard Sri S. Satya Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri Balaji Medamalli, learned counsel for petitioners, the Government Pleader for Municipal Administration representing respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for respondent No. 4 and Sri I. Koti Reddi representing the 6th respondent. The main arguments for the respondents were advanced by the Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Sri I. Koti Reddi. They were supported by the Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj.

PETITIONERS SUBMISSIONS:-

4. The petition has been filed challenging the G.O. Ms. No. 79 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (H1) Department dated 28.01.2020 by which a number of villages; and four Urban Local Bodies were included in the jurisdiction of respondent No. 6. According to the petitioners, the G.O. was issued under a colorable exercise of power, by non-application of mind and is violative of the principles of natural justice. It is also challenged as being violative of the law and the constitutional provisions regarding Panchayat Raj etc.

5. Sri S. Satya Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the villages and urban legal bodies which are now sought to be included into the Metropolitan Development Area under the 6th respondent are the most vital agricultural areas of the Godavari Delta in the State of Andhra Pradesh. He has spelt out in great detail the significant features of the delta and the natural flora and fauna of this area which is popularly known as 'Konaseema'. Learned counsel highlighted the facts that the entire area is a very very fertile area situated as it is between the tributaries of the river Godavari which splits into branches before joining the 'Bay of Bengal'. He pointed out that this area is a totally rural agrarian based economy with hardly any urbanization or scope for urbanization more particularly as defined under the A.P. Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 (herein after called as 'the Act 5 of 2016'). Learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to his pleadings, wherein it is pleaded that these villages are not close to an urban area or an urban region. He points out that they are not within the urban agglomeration either and that they are spread all over the vast delta area of 'Konaseema'. It is pointed out that the population concentration is very less. He argues that there is no likelihood of urbanization in the recent future. He also pointed out that the stake holders namely the villagers; Panchayats including the grama-sabhas, were never consulted before their villages were included within the jurisdiction of the 6th respondent. Learned counsel argues that the procedure required to be followed has not been followed at all. He states that there is non application of mind by the State and that the respondents did not even gather the required or proper data to decide whether the areas sought to be included would fit within the definition of "urban area"/"metropolitan area". He argued that purely agrarian villages are sought to be included into the areas without considering the needed data as stipulated by the Act 5 of 2016 itself. Learned counsel also argued that the Act 5 of 2016 has overriding effect and takes away all the powers and duties of the local bodies. He also submits that this is contrary to the mandate of the Constitution of India as can be seen from the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments which grant special