Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vunnam Nalini Devi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 February, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.(PIL) Nos.83 & 84 of 2022 and
W.P. No.10299 of 2022
W.P(PIL). No.83 of 2022:
Navuluri Madhava Rao,
S/o Krishnaiahm, Aged 49 years,
Hindu, R/o Dr No 2-12A, Navulurivari street,
Sameerapalem Village,
Voletivaripalem Mandal,
Prakasam District, Pin - 523116.
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Chief Secretary,
General Administration Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Amaravati, Guntur District and ten others.
...Respondents
W.P(PIL). No.84 of 2022:
Vunnam Nalini Devi, W/o Hari Babu, Aged 46 years, R/o Kandukuru Town and Mandal, Prakasam District, Pin 52311, A.P. ... Petitioner Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, General Administration Department (GAD), HCJ & RRR, J 2 W.P.(PIL) Nos.83 & 84 of 2022 and W.P. No.10299 of 2022 Secretariat, Velagapudi, at Amaravathi, Guntur District and three others.
...Respondents Mr. S. Siva Rama Krishna Prasad, Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(PIL) Nos.83 & 84 of 2022.
Government Pleader for GAD, for respondent No.1.
Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent Nos.2, 6, 7, 10 &
11.
Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development, for respondent No.3.
Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, for respondent Nos.4, 8 &
9. Government Pleader for Finance, for respondent No.5. W.P. No.10299 of 2022:
Bollineni Nageswara Rao, S/o Varadaiah, Age 53 Years, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o D. No.5-78, Viswanadhapuram, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh, & another.
... Petitioners Versus The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, General Administration Department (GAD), Secretariat, Velagapudi, at Amaravathi, Guntur District and six others.
...Respondents Mr. Posani Venkateswarlu, Counsel for the petitioners.
Government Pleader for GAD, for respondent No.1.
HCJ & RRR, J 3 W.P.(PIL) Nos.83 & 84 of 2022 and W.P. No.10299 of 2022 Government Pleader for Finance, for respondent No.3.
Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent Nos.2, 4 to 6.
DATE : 23.02.2024 PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ:
1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, we propose to dispose of the same by way of a common judgment and order.
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh was formed in the year 1956 under the States Reorganization Act, 1956. Thereafter, in terms of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014, the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh was divided into the newly formed State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh with 13 districts, namely, East Godavari, West Godavari, Krishna, Guntur, Prakasam, SPSR Nellore, Srikakulam, Vizianagaram, Visakhapatnam, Kurnool, Chittoor, YSR Kadapa and Anantapur.
3. According to Section 3 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ―the Act‖), the Government may, by notification, for purposes of revenue administration, divide the State into such districts with such limits as may be specified therein and further that each district shall HCJ & RRR, J 4 W.P.(PIL) Nos.83 & 84 of 2022 and W.P. No.10299 of 2022 consist of such revenue divisions and each revenue division shall consist of such mandals and each Mandal shall consist of villages as the Government may, by notification from time to time specify in this behalf.
4. In terms of Section 3(2) of the said Act, the Government can also, in the interest of better administration and development of the areas form a new district, revenue division or Mandal by separation of area from any district, revenue division, or mandal or by uniting two or more districts, revenue divisions, or mandals or parts thereof or by uniting any area to a district, revenue division, mandal or part thereof. It can also by issuance of a notification under Section 3(2) of the Act, increase or diminish the area of any district, revenue division or mandal or alter their boundaries or names.
Section 3(5) of the Act envisages as under:
―(5) Before issuing any notification under this section, the Government or the [Commissioner of Land Revenue], as the case may be, shall publish in such manner as may be prescribed, the proposals inviting objections or suggestions thereon from the persons residing within the district, revenue division, [mandal] or village who are likely to be affected thereby within such period as may be specified therein, and shall take into consideration the objections or suggestions, if any, received.‖ HCJ & RRR, J 5 W.P.(PIL) Nos.83 & 84 of 2022 and W.P. No.10299 of 2022 Section 4 of the Act entitles the State Government to make rules for carrying out all or any of the purposes of the Act. In exercise of the power so conferred under Section 4(1), the rules namely, the Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ―the Rules‖), have been framed. Rule 3 and 4 of the Rules, being relevant to the present controversy, are reproduced hereunder:
3. Matters of consideration in formation of districts etc.:-- (1) Where any action is proposed to be taken by the Government under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act or by the Commissioner of Land Revenue under sub-section (4) of that Section, the Government or the Commissioner of Land Revenue, as the case may be, shall take into consideration as far as may be the following matters and the views of the Collectors of the districts and of such other authorities as the Government may consider necessary:--
(i) Area, population, demand under the land revenue and other revenues in respect of areas affected by the proposals:
(ii) Historical association, Geographical contiguity, Physical features, common interests and problems, Cultural and Educational requirements, Infrastructural facilities and economic progress of the areas.
(iii) Development of the area concerned, having regard to the various developments and welfare schemes undertaken or contemplated by the Government in relation to those areas;
(iv) Administrative convenience and better administration; and HCJ & RRR, J 6 W.P.(PIL) Nos.83 & 84 of 2022 and W.P. No.10299 of 2022
(v) interest of economy.
(2) With regard to any proposals for alteration of the name of the district revenue division, mandal or a village regard shall be had among other matters, to the following namely:-- (i) Historical association, if any, of the existing name, with the proposed change; and (ii) the need for change of name if any proposed.
(3) In matters concerning sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Acts the Collector concerned shall forward to the Government his report with his views together with the record of enquiry if any for the consideration of the Government. If after such consideration the Government so decides, a preliminary notification under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act inviting objections or suggestions to the proposals from the persons residing in the area/areas which are likely to be affected thereby, shall be issued.
(4) In matters concerning sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act, the Collector concerned shall forward to the Commissioner of Land Revenue his report together with the record of inquiry if any with his views for the consideration of the Commissioner. If after such consideration the Commissioner of Land Revenue so decides, a preliminary notification under sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act inviting objections or suggestions to the proposals from the persons residing in the area/areas which are likely to be affected thereby shall be issued.
4. Publication of preliminary notification:-- (1) The preliminary notification referred to in sub-rule (3) or (4) of Rule 3 inviting objections or suggestions thereon shall be in Form I and shall be published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette and the District Gazettes of the district/or districts affected by the proposal and shall also be displayed at the village chavidi, offices of Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samithi and on the notice boards of the HCJ & RRR, J 7 W.P.(PIL) Nos.83 & 84 of 2022 and W.P. No.10299 of 2022 Offices of the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub-Collector/Assistant Collector/Collectorate and Zilla Parishad. (2) Any person affected by the proposal may within [30 day's] from the date of publication of the notification referred to in sub- rule (1) above communicate his objections or suggestions thereto to the Secretary to the Government in the Revenue Department or to the Commissioner of Land Revenue, as the case may be, through the Collector of the district concerned, who shall forward the same with his remarks to the Government or the Commissioner of Land Revenue as the case may be.
5. In the light of the aforementioned provisions of the Act and the Rules, it appears that the Government constituted State Level Committee (SLC) namely the ‗Committee to study the restructuring of Districts in Andhra Pradesh' under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary to Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.2098, dated 07.08.2020. Subsequently, the Government issued another G.O. bearing G.O.Rt.No.2207, dated 22.08.2020, constituting sub-committees and District Level Committees to assist the State Level Committee and for providing inputs to the said Committee.
6. It appears that in terms of the provisions of Section 3(5) of the Act, a draft proposal, dated 25.01.2022, was published in the Government Gazette on 26.01.2022 inviting objections, if any, to the said proposal on or before the expiry of thirty days from the date of the said notification.
HCJ & RRR, J 8 W.P.(PIL) Nos.83 & 84 of 2022 and W.P. No.10299 of 2022
7. According to this notification, Kandukuru Revenue Division, which was earlier included in the Prakasam District, which District had its headquarters at Ongole town, was now to be merged with Kavali Revenue Division and would become part of SPSR Nellore District.
8. According to the stand of the petitioners, objections were filed to the draft notification in terms of Section 3(5) of the Act. The objections raised by the petitioners and as reflected in the writ petitions and urged before us during the course of hearing were that the people of Kandukuru Revenue Division would face a lot of hardship and administrative inconvenience on account of the proposed merger of Kandukuru Revenue Division with Kavali Revenue Division and making it part of the SPSR Nellore District. The objection raised was also that the official respondents had not followed the criteria prescribed by the Rules for altering/merger of Mandals/Revenue Divisions.
9. Most importantly, what is urged is that the objections even when invited by the respondents and filed by the petitioners were not considered at all before issuing the official notification under Section 3(5) of the Act vide G.O.Ms.No.190, dated 02.04.2022. The grievance of the petitioners is that by the inclusion of Kandukuru HCJ & RRR, J 9 W.P.(PIL) Nos.83 & 84 of 2022 and W.P. No.10299 of 2022 Revenue Division as part of SPSR Nellore District, the petitioners would have to face extreme hardship inasmuch as they would have to travel long distances for seeking redressal of their problems before the authorities of the Revenue, Police as also the local administration and adjudication of their disputes before a District Court. It is stated that Ongole (headquarters) is at a distance of 40 kms from Kandukuru and is within reach of every Mandal, and if the District headquarters were to be located in SPSR Nellore District, it would increase the distance between 100 to 140 kms, thus, creating difficulty for the people residing in Kandukuru Revenue Division to seek redressal from the authorities at the District Headquarters. It is also stated that Kandukuru Revenue Division has a historical importance and was the biggest Revenue Division with 24 mandals in the State and thus, would lose its historical importance on account of its merger with Kavali Revenue Division, which forms part of SPSR Nellore District.
10. It is also the stand of the petitioners that Prakasam District would be deprived of developmental activity, if Kandukuru was included in SPSR Nellore District. Apart from this, it is stated that on account of Nellore becoming the District Headquarters, people HCJ & RRR, J 10 W.P.(PIL) Nos.83 & 84 of 2022 and W.P. No.10299 of 2022 would lose employment opportunities and would be forced to migrate to different places, thus, hampering progress.
11. In the reply filed by the official respondents, the stand taken is that an in-depth study and analysis had been got conducted by the Government on the existing structure of the districts keeping in view the various socio-economic and cultural factors. It is stated that the restructuring of districts not only allows better administrative convenience but also ensures better governance. The stand taken is that the Government followed the criteria envisaged in terms of Rule 3(1) of the Rules inter alia as regards administrative convenience, better administration, interest of economy, historical association, geographical contiguity, physical features etc.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents would urge that the principle adopted for formation of districts was based on the parliamentary constituency as a unit and if all the assembly segments of a parliamentary constituency are made part of a District, it would help to enable the Government provide better administrative convenience to its citizens.
13. Out attention was drawn to the objections raised by the petitioners before the respondents and the remarks of the Collector HCJ & RRR, J 11 W.P.(PIL) Nos.83 & 84 of 2022 and W.P. No.10299 of 2022 in connection therewith, as also the official view expressed by the Government based upon the objections and remarks of the Collector. For facility of reference, the objections, remarks of the Collector and remarks of the Government are reproduced hereunder:
―OBJECTION:-
Continuation of Kandukuru existing Revenue Division / Assembly Constituency in Prakasam District.
Remarks of Collector:
The Kandukuru Revenue Division is the 2nd largest Revenue Division in the State and historically it is having importance. The distance between all the Mandals of the Kandukuru AC and Ongole Dist. HQs is 43 to 78 KMs. But, the distance between all the Mandals of the Kandukuru AC and Nellore Dist. HQS and Kavali Revenue Divisional HQs. is 85 to 116 KMs and 26 to 57 KMs respectively. The revenue division was established about 129 years back by the British Rulers and very convenient to the administration of surrounding area and having all establishments. To continue Ramayapatnam Port which is located in Kandukuru Assembly Constituency.
The principle of District formation is based on the parliamentary constituency as a unit. The idea is that if all the Assembly segments of a parliamentary constituency are made part of a District, it will help to enable better administrative convenience. The Kandukuru Assembly Constituency is covered under Nellore Parliamentary Constituency. If the area is considered to continue in Prakasam District, some more requests/demands may come in the State. Nellore as a proposed District including Kandukuru Assembly Constituency shall HCJ & RRR, J 12 W.P.(PIL) Nos.83 & 84 of 2022 and W.P. No.10299 of 2022 ensure better coordination between Govt. employees and elected public representatives. This will enable better implementation and review of Govt programmes.
Remarks Of Government:
Rule 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Rules, 1984 lists various factors that need to be taken into consideration by the government, in addition to the views of the Collectors, on representations received after preliminary notifications under Rule 3(3).
The Government have taken a decision to restructure / form new districts taking into consideration of each Parliamentary constituency as one District as far as possible. As reported by the Collector, the Kandukuru Assembly Segment is part of Nellore Parliamentary Constituency. Before formation of Prakasam District in 1972, Kandukuru Assembly constituency was part of Nellore district.
Improved road (NH 16- Kolkatta to Chennai and 167B- Mydukuru to Singarayakonda) and rail (well developed triple railway line from Kolkatta to Chennai) infra will reduce any hardships regarding access of Nellore as district head quarter by the people from Kandukuru Assembly constituency. Therefore, the distance as a factor of district head quarter at Nellore may not be a administrative inconvenience for the people belonging to Kandukuru Assembly constituency. The Ramayapatnam Greenfield Port and proposed ancillary industries are going to be established in Kandukuru Assembly constituency sharing other parts of Nellore district.
Also as per common interests and problems, cultural and educational requirements, socio and economic progress of the area, it may not feasible to form a separate district of Kandukuru. Under the circumstances, the request to continue HCJ & RRR, J 13 W.P.(PIL) Nos.83 & 84 of 2022 and W.P. No.10299 of 2022 Kandukuru Revenue division in Prakasam district may be rejected and accordingly, the Preliminary Notification may be confirmed.‖
14. On a perusal of the view expressed by the Government on the objections of the petitioners as also remarks of the Collector, it can be seen that this is not a case where the objections filed by the petitioners were not considered at all. It thus becomes clear that the same were not only received but they were considered and a view was expressed by the Government on the same and the objections raised were dealt with and rejected. It is pertinent to mention here that after the rejection of the objections raised by the petitioners, as also others in regard to the same issue, a final notification was issued vide Notification No.489, dated 03.04.2022.
15. It is settled law that this Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not test the decision but the decision making process. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgments rendered in the cases of Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India1 and State of U.P. vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh2.
1 (2023) 3 SCC 1 2 (1989) 2 SCC 505 HCJ & RRR, J 14 W.P.(PIL) Nos.83 & 84 of 2022 and W.P. No.10299 of 2022
16. Be that as it may, it can safely be held that the decision is neither perverse nor in violation of the Act of 1974 or the Rules of 1984.
17. We find no merit in these petitions, which are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J AKN HCJ & RRR, J 15 W.P.(PIL) Nos.83 & 84 of 2022 and W.P. No.10299 of 2022 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO W.P.(PIL) Nos.83 & 84 of 2022 and W.P. No.10299 of 2022 DATE : 23.02.2024 AKN