Point of Law: Provisions of the Act No.30 of 2013 cannot be clubbed with the APMRUDA Act, 2016 and the Rules, 2016.

JUDGMENT :

M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

1. Petitioner No.1 is an Association known as Bhusekharana Land Pooling Raithu Kooli Nirvasithula Sankshema Sangam with registered number 112 of 2020. Petitioner No.2 – G. Sriram is the president of petitioner No.1 association, whereas, petitioner No.3 is an individual. They filed this writ petition by way of public interest litigation, challenging the action of the respondents – authority in issuing G.O.Ms.No.72 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dated 25.01.2020 and proceeded to take away the assigned land for urbanisation i.e. house sites in such a manner depriving the benefits to be given to artisans and other landless poor in the 54 villages of Visakhapatnam District, in gross violation of Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 (for short “APMRUDA Act”), provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “Act No.30 of 2013”), land allotment policy issued Vide G.O.Ms.No.571 and declare the impugned G.O.Ms.No.72 dated 25.01.2020 as discriminatory, arbitrary, destroying the rural economy of the 54 villages brining in catastrophe to helpless people.

2. The specific contention of the petitioners is three fold.

3. The first contention is that Act 30 of 2013, Second Schedule has given elements of R and R entitlement to land owners and families whose livelihood is primarily dependent on land acquired. Clause III specifically states that when land is taken for urbanization purpose, 20% of the developed land must be given to the persons who lost the land. However, here only 18% is offered to the D-Form Patta holders. As per the definition of land owner under Section 3(r) of Act 30 of 2013, persons who are entitled to be granted Patta under any law are also eligible to all the benefits if he is the land owner. When land pooling was taken up in Amaravathi area, the agricultural labourers were identified and offered various benefits. The impugned land pooling has not taken care about this element. In the present case, nearly 6,000 Acres of cultivable land is being taken by the authorities. Nearly 20,000 families of agricultural labourers, artisans depending upon these 6,000 Acres for livelihood are being deprived of the benefits provided under the Act No.30 of 2013. Thus, the State denied the benefits of Act No.30 of 2013 and passed the impugned Government Order, exercising powers under the APMRUDA Act, 2016. It amounts to violation of their livelihood, right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. It is further contended that the respondents issued the impugned Government Order not only in transgression of provisions of the Act 30 of 2013 but also contrary to the land allotment policy. When the State is intending to provide house sites to various persons, the agricultural land cannot be taken away. Thus, instead of taking dry land, other Porumboku land which are available and without exploring various other options, the Government has resorted to taking assigned and unassigned agricultural land belonging to the most marginalized sections, which provide livelihood not only to small farmers but also to agricultural labourers. This is against the policy of government.

5. It is further contended that the impugned G.O.Ms.No.72 dated 25.01.2020 was issued in violation of the APMRUDA Act, 2016 and Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority Land Pooling Scheme (Formulation and Implementation) Rules, 2016 (for short "the Rules, 2016). It is specifically contended that 30 days time is required to be issued for submitting objections, but instead of 30 days time, in the present case only 15 days time was given, it is in violation of the Rules, 2016. Therefore, the Government Order impugned in the writ petition is contrary to the provisions of the APMRUDA Act, 2016 and the Rules, 2016, requested to grant relief as claimed in the petition