2022 Supreme(AP) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, JJ.
Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Chief Secretary – Respondent
W.P.Nos.13203, 13204, 13205, 13521, 13645, 13665, 13666, 13887, 13919, 13925, 13966, 13983, 14003, 14053, 14054, 14282, 14338, 14768, 14897, 14996, 15035, 15094, 15097, 16514, 16830, 16840 OF 2020; W.P. (PIL) Nos.184, 185, 200, 201, 208, 209, 215, 217, 230, 235, 236, 239, 253, 256 OF 2020 WP (PIL) Nos.177 OF 2020 W.P.Nos.13206, 16634 OF 2020; W.P.Nos.9154, 9528, 10700 OF 2020 WP (PIL) Nos.179 of 2019 WP (PIL) Nos.8, 24, 40, 102, 213 of 2020 W.P.Nos.925, 1207, 4004, 5057 of 2020 W.P. (PIL) Nos.7, 153 of 2020 W.P.Nos.932, 933, 8472 of 2020 W.P. (PIL) No.121 of 2020 & W.P.No.1388 of 2020
Decided on : 03-03-2022

Point of Law: Legislature has no legislative competence to pass any resolution/law for change of capital or bifurcating or trifurcating the capital city Notified Master Plan cannot be modified suo motu.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, Art. 226, Article 300-A – Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Repeal Act, 2020 – e A.P State Reorganisation Act, 2014 – Sections 5, 31(2) and 94 – Principle of constitutional morality – Doctrine of legitimate expectation – Plea of public interest to override the legitimate expectation before repeal of A.P. Act Nos. 27 & 28 of 2020 – Constitutionality, legality, validity of Act No. 27 of 2020 and Act No.28 of 2020 – Development of infrastructure, capital city, capital region, failed to handover developed reconstituted plots as agreed in Development Agreement – Surrendering their agricultural land in the Land Pooling Scheme for development of capital city and capital region – Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Repeal Act, 2020, is ultra vires to Articles 3, 4, 14, 19, 21, 197, 174, Parts IX and IXA, Article 300-A of the Constitution of India – (1) Whether the Development Agreement cum Irrevocable General Power of Attorney i.e. Form 9.14 constitutes a statutory agreement? If so, whether the State is liable to implement the terms of Form 9.14 Agreement-cumIrrevocable General Power of Attorney? (2) Whether the action of the State defeats the legitimate expectation of farmers regarding construction of capital city and developmental activities in the land pooled? If so, whether the action of the respondents be declared as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to doctrine of legitimate expectation? (3) Whether the action of the State and the APCRDA amounts to violation of statutory promise made by the State and the APCRDA in terms of the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014 and the Andhra Pradesh Capital City Land Pooling Scheme (Formulation and Implementation) Rules, 2015? If so, whether the State and the APCRDA be estopped from continuous violation of such promise, applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel? (4) Whether the State and the APCRDA infringed the farmers right to life guaranteed under the Article 21 of CJ, MSM,J and DVSS,J W.P.Nos.13203 of 2020 & batch 24 the Constitution of India so also the constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India by their acts? (5) Whether the change of Government can result in change of the policy or liable to continue the capital city and region development projects undertaken by the earlier Government? (6) Whether the State and the APCRDA abandoned the project to construct the capital city in capital region and failed to develop the infrastructure in the land pooled by the APCRDA, which was voluntarily surrendered by the farmers under the Land Pooling Scheme? If so, the abandonment or failure to implement the projects would infringe the vested right of the farmers in terms of the provisions of the APCRDA Act and the Land Pooling Scheme? (7) Whether the State is competent to modify the Master Plan without any reference from the local authority? (8) If the issues referred above are decided in affirmative, whether this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India issue a writ of continuous Mandamus? (9) Whether the non-statutory reports submitted by K.T. Raveendran Committee, Boston Consultancy Group and High Powered Committee be declared as illegal and arbitrary? (10) Whether the legislature of the State of Andhra Pradesh lacks competence to make any legislation for shifting or relocating the capital including the High Court in any area other than the capital city notified under Section3 of the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014?

Finding of the Court:

Right to property is a human right and the petitioners failed to enjoy their property on account of surrender of lands and the failure to deliver reconstituted developed plots as agreed in Development Agreement – cum - Irrevocable General Power of Attorney in Form-9.14. Such denial would amount to denial of human right – Agreement in Form-9.14 is a Development Agreementcum-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney and it is a statutory contract, and the violation of terms and conditions by the respondents - State and APCRDA, warrants interference of this Court, while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue appropriate directions – Since the petitioners have no remedy elsewhere, more particularly, before a civil court or any other authority in terms of Development Agreement-cum-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney in Form 9.14, they are entitled to approach this Court for redressal – As the respondents – State and APCRDA violated the fundamental rights of the petitioners, as they surrendered their only source of livelihood i.e. agriculture under the Land Pooling Scheme, while CJ, MSM,J and DVSS,J W.P.Nos.13203 of 2020 & batch 303 expecting developed reconstituted plots according to their eligibility, the State is under obligation to complete the entire process within three years and thus expired on 2018 itself.

Result: Disposed of