Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs State Govt To Complete Construction Of Amaravati-Capital Region In 6 Months

A Full Bench of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy and Justice D. V. S. S. Somayajulu has issued this direction in a clutch of writ petitions filed before it challenging the A. P. Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of All Regions Act 2020 and Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development (Repeal) Act 2020.

It is important to note that during the course of the hearing of these pleas, the Andhra Pradesh Government had withdrawn these acts, also called the three capital laws, as they sought to establish three capitals instead of one capital.

It may be noted that one capital (Amrawati) for the State was proposed by the previous regime under the A.P. Reorganization Act, however, by bringing the above-mentioned laws, the current political regime had proposed to establish three capitals in the state.

Essentially, the 2020 Acts were brought by the current political regime and they intended to develop Amaravati, Visakhapatnam, and Kurnool as the legislative, executive, and judicial capitals respectively. Last year, in November 2021, the State had repealed/withdrew these laws.

However, even after the withdrawal of the act, the Court had continued to hear the pleas and has now held that the State Government had no competence to come up with the 2 legislations (now withdrawn). The Court, in its Judgment, remarked thus:

"…State Legislature lacks competence to make any legislation for shifting, bifurcating or trifurcating the capital and Heads of Departments of the three wings of the Government including the High Court to any area other than the Capital city notified under Section3 of the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014 and the land pooled under the Andhra Pradesh Capital City Land Pooling Scheme (Formation and Implementation) Rules, 2015."

In essence, the Court has held that the State Legislature was not competent to bring out with the legislations in question (which were later on withdrawn) proposing to construct three capital cities.

The High Court has also categorically held that the respondents/state had failed to keep up their promise to the petitioners who had surrendered their lands expecting developed, reconstituted plots as the State failed to complete the process of construction of Amrawati City by 2018.

Essentially, around 33,000 families of Amravati had given up their land for capital region development program, however, when the current Government decided to come up with the legislation for the construction of three capital cities in 2020, the families were left with no sustainable means of livelihood and therefore, they had moved the court challenging the move of the current Government to construct three capitals in the state.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the petitioners challenging the state's laws had argued before the Court that the abrupt halting of development in the capital region had led to the crashing of the value of plots and this could mean that these families would incur a loss of over Rs 30,000 crore if the value of returnable plots is estimated at the lowest prices.

Having heard the arguments of the parties, the Court has now held that the action of the respondents/state to come up with a proposal for three capitals was arbitrary and violative of Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, the Court observed that the Court was under an obligation to protect the right of the poor farmers by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and issuing appropriate direction(s).

"...the present Government is under statutory legal obligation to complete the projects undertaken by the earlier government, unless they are contrary to any statutory or constitutional provisions. The State shall account for the amount spent on the constructions and other activities undertaken by the earlier government to the public, since Rs.15,000 crores was spent on development activities and for the grounding works worth Rs.32,000 crores...When the State and APCRDA failed to maintain the trust and acted against good governance and violated the constitutional trust, the Court while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can issue appropriate direction to complete the development activities including infrastructure in the land pooled within the specified time." the Court remarked.

In view of the findings recorded by the Court, the Court issued a continuous mandamus with following directions:

1. The State and APCRDA are directed to discharge their duties enshrined under Schedule II and III and Land Pooling Rules, 2015
2. The State and APCRDA are directed not to alienate/mortgage or create any third party interest on the land pooled, except for the construction of capital city or development of capital region;
3. The State and APCRDA are directed to complete the process of development and infrastructure in the Amaravati Capital City and Region providing basic amenities like roads, drinking water, drainage, electricity in terms of Section58 of APCRDA Act read with Rule 12(6) of Land Pooling Rules, 2015 within one month from the date of this order.
4. The State and APCRDA are directed to complete the Town Planning Schemes as per Section 61 of APCRDA Act.
5. The State is directed to construct and develop Amaravati capital city and capital region within six months time, as agreed in the terms and conditions of Development Agreement-cumIrrevocable General Power of Attorney in Form 9.14, provisions of APCRDA Act and Land Pooling Rules, 2015.
6. The State and APCRDA shall develop the reconstituted plots belonging to land owners in Amaravati capital region by providing approach roads, drinking water, electricity connection to each plot, drainage etc. to enable the same to be fit for habitation in the Amaravati Capital city.
7. The State and APCRDA are further directed to deliver/hand over the developed reconstituted plots in Amaravati capital region, on ground, to the land holders who surrendered their land as promised by the State, within three months from the date of this order.

Case title - Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 26

Click here to Read/Download Judgment