IMPORTANT POINT
The State Government has the authority to repeal the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 under Section 101 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, as it allows adaptations and modifications of laws.

ORDER :

(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice J.Sreenivas Rao)

In all these Writ Petitions, petitioners have mainly questioned G.O.Ms.No.113, Revenue (Land Matters) Department, dated 01.06.2016 issued by the respondent No.1-State Government, exercising the powers conferred under Section 101 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 (Central Act No.6 of 2014) repealing the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 as illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and without jurisdiction.

2. Heard Sri Anand Kapur, learned counsel, representing Sri M.Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.11079 of 2017, Sri Velagapudi Srinivas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P. No.8722 of 2019, Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of learned Advocate General for official respondents. No representation on behalf of the petitioner/s in W.P.No.22362 of 2016 and W.P.No.20565 of 2016 and no representation on behalf of the unofficial respondents in all the Writ Petitions.

Brief facts of the case:

3. For the facility of reference, the facts in W.P. No.11079 of 2017 are being referred.

3.1 Petitioner filed L.G.O.P. No.753 of 2003 on the file of XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar against respondent Nos.3 and 4 invoking the provisions of Section 7(A) of A.P. Land Grabbing Act, 1982 (hereinafter called for brevity as ‘the Act, 1982’) to declare the petitioner as owner of the premises bearing H.No.8-8-364/1 of Plot No.A-88 in Survey Nos.250 to 260 and 263 to 304 consisting of 300 square yards situated at Ward No.8, Block No.8, Green Park Colony, Karmanghat Village and to declare that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are land grabbers and to evict them from the above premises and to deliver the vacant possession of the property and also to direct them to pay damages for illegal occupation of the schedule property from 02.11.2003. Learned XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record dismissed the above L.G.O.P.No.753 of 2003 by its judgment and decree dated 17.10.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition stating that the respondent No.1-State Government is not having authority or jurisdiction by way of repealing the Act, 1982 to issue the impugned G.O.Ms.No.113 dated 01.06.2016.

4. Respondent No.2 in W.P. No.8722 of 2019 filed common counter affidavit on behalf of official respondents denying the allegations made by the petitioners inter alia contending that respondent No.1-State Government, after following the due procedure as contemplated under law issued the impugned G.O.Ms.No.113 dated 01.06.2016 after obtaining necessary orders as per the business rules and also approval from Cabinet, exercising the powers under Section 101 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, (herein after called brevity Act, 2014) and repealed the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 by assigning the reasons and transferred the pending cases from the Special Tribunal to the respective Courts and the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable under law.

5. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners:

5.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.11079 of 2017 contended that the respondent No.1-State Government through impugned G.O.Ms.No.113 dated 01.06.2016 repealed the entire provisions of the Act, 1982 and the same is contrary to law and without jurisdiction. He further contended that respondent No.1-State Government is not having authority or jurisdiction to repeal the Act, 1982 by way of G.O. in the absence of any legislation, by simply invoking the powers under the provisions of Section 101 of Act, 2014.

5.2 He further contended that under the constitutional scheme, Legislature is competent to legislate within its domain of competence, subject to the provision