2020 Supreme(AP) 767

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
J.K. Maheshwari, Akula Venkata Sesha Sai, M. Satyanarayana Murthy, JJ.
G. Hari Govinda Prasad and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. – Respondents
IA No. 1 of 2020 in WP (PIL) No. 49 of 2020
Decided On : 23-03-2020

The State Government does not have the power to alienate the land pooled under the Land Pooling Scheme.

Headnote:

Writ petitions challenging the allotment of land to economically weaker sections under the Land Allotment Policy vide G.O. Ms. No. 367 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department dated 19.8.2019; G.O. Ms. No. 107 MA&UD (CRDA-2) Department dated 25.2.2020 and G.O. Ms. No. 488 MA & UD Revenue (Assignment-I) Department dated 2.12.2019, for providing affordable housing for the poor under Section 53(1)(d) of the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014 (CRDA Act).

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, residents of Thulium, Krishnayapalem and other Villages, which are part of the capital city area, surrendered their lands to the capital region development or for Andhra Capital City under Land Pooling Scheme, formulated by Government of Andhra Pradesh for establishment of Capital City for the State of Andhra Pradesh, consequent upon bifurcation of erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh into the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh by Andhra Pradesh State Re-Organization Act, 2014, which came into force on 2.6.2014. The petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of various extents of patta lands in Mandadam and Thulium Villages in Guntur District and they have surrendered their lands accepting the proposals for allotment of developed plots. The State formulated Master Plan under Section 38 and developmental Schemes under Section 59 to carry out the purpose of the Act. As per Section 53(1)(d) of the Act, atleast five percent of the total area pooled under land pooling scheme may be reserved for providing affordable housing for the poor. Taking advantage of Section 53(1)(d) of the Act, G.O. Ms. No. 107 MA&UD (CRDA) Department dated 25.2.2020 and G.O. Ms. No. 44 dated 12.2.2020 which are impugned in the present writ petitions have been issued.

Finding of the Court:

1. The proposed allotment of house sites under Land Allotment Policy either to economically weaker section people or to the poor, either as social housing or affordable housing, is contrary to the intention of the Legislature and if the State is permitted to allot such lands as house plots, it would impede or defeat the very intention of the Legislature, since, providing built-up space or dwelling units within the Capital City Area is to allow the poor and economically weaker sections to reside therein during their lifetime. Hence, the proposed alienation of lands by the State Government is prima facie contrary to the provisions of the Act; Land Pooling Scheme Rules, 2015 and Land Allotment Regulations, 2017. 2. The proposed allotment of lands is prima facie contrary to the intention of the Legislature in incorporating Section 53(1)(d), Section 2(22) of the Act, read with Schedule-II(ii)(f) of the Land Pooling Scheme Rules, 2015. When the proposed allotment is contrary to the provisions, this Court while exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere with the administrative or policy decisions taken by the State.

Issues: 1. Whether the proposed allotment of land to economically weaker sections under the Land Allotment Policy is in violation of the provisions of the CRDA Act and the Land Pooling Scheme Rules, 2015? 2. Whether the State Government has the power to alienate the land pooled under the Land Pooling Scheme? 3. Whether the proposed allotment of house sites is contrary to the intention of the Legislature in incorporating Section 53(1)(d), Section 2(22) of the Act, read with Schedule-II(ii)(f) of the Land Pooling Scheme Rules, 2015?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the proposed allotment of house sites under the Land Allotment Policy is prima facie in violation of various provisions of the CRDA Act and the Land Pooling Scheme Rules, 2015. The Court observed that the Act and the Rules obligate the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority to reserve atleast five percent of total area of the scheme for providing affordable housing for the poor or social housing for economically weaker sections, but not open space. Hence, the contention of the learned Advocate General that 'housing' includes site is not acceptable prima facie, for the limited purpose of deciding these petitions. 2. The Court held that the State Government does not have the power to alienate the land pooled under the Land Pooling Scheme. The Court observed that though the land is deemed to vest on the Government, in view of amendment by Act No. 1 of 2018 to Section 57(2), of the Act, no power is conferred on the State Government to dispose of the land. Sections 128 and 130 of the Act alone are the enabling provisions to dispose of the land by the Capital Region Development Authority. 3. The Court held that the proposed allotment of house sites is contrary to the intention of the Legislature in incorporating Section 53(1)(d), Section 2(22) of the Act, read with Schedule-II(ii)(f) of the Land Pooling Scheme Rules, 2015. The Court observed that on conjoint reading of various provisions referred above, it is abundantly clear that the authority is under obligation to allot built-up space or dwelling units either to the poor or to the economically weaker section people, but not house site(s) or plot(s).

Final Decision: The Court allowed the interlocutory applications filed by the petitioners and suspended G.O. Ms. No. 107 MA&UD (CRDA) Department dated 25.2.2020 and G.O. Ms. No. 44 dated 12.2.2020, during pendency of the writ petitions.