Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Peddi Ramesh vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 15 May, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI L.A. No. 1 of 2020 IN W.P No. 8472 of 2020 ° Between :- 1. 9. Peddi Ramesh, S/o. Peddi Venkatramaiah, R/o. 41-11-17, Dr Babu Rao Street, Naidu Peta, Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada (Urban), Krishna, Andhra Pradesh- 520013 . Kommareddy Srilakshmi, S/o. Kommarareddy Ramakrishna Reddy, R/o. H.No. 1-152, Nidamarru, Mangalagiri, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh- 522503 . Komma Reddy Rama Krishna Reddy, S/o. Name Komma Reddy Nagi Reddy, R/o. H.No. 1-152, Nidamarru, Mangalagiri, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh- 522503 Gopidesi Samba Siva Rao, S/o. Bulli Kotaiah, R/o. 1-4, Kuragallu, Mangalagiri, T.B. Sanitorium, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh- 522503 ...Petitioners (Petitioners in W.P.No. 8472 OF 2020 on the file of High Court) AND . The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Building-1, 1* Floor, Secretariat, Vetagapudi, Amaravati, A.P . The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through the Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District . The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through the Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority, Represented by its Chairman, Kart Marx Road, Lenin Centre, Arandalpet, Governorpeta, Vijayawada. The Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority - Address Karl Marx Road, Lenin Centre, Arandalpet, Governorpeta, Vijayawada. Krishnayapalem Gram Panchayat for Krishnayapalem Village, Represented by its Panchayat Secretary, Krishnayapalem, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. Nidamarru Gram Panchayat for Nidamarru Village, Represented by its Panchayat Secretary, Nidamarru, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. Kuragallu Gram Panchayat for Kuragallu Village, Address Represented by its Panchayat Secretary, Kuragallu, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. Mandadam Gram Panchayat for Mandadam Village, Represented by its Panchayat Secretary, Mandadam, Mandadam Mandal, Guntur District. 10. navolu Grarn Panchayat for Inavolu Village, Represented by its Panchayat Secretary, Inavolu, Mandadam Mandal, Guntur District. ... Respondents (Respondents in-do-) Counsel for the Petitioners :SRI ASHOK BHAN, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI SA] SANJAY SURANENI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 :THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of W.P., the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Notification dated 10° March 2020 published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette bearing No. 355 pending disposal of W.P No. 8472 of 2020, on the file of the High Court. Contd..2.... The court while directing issue of notice to the Respondents herein to show cause as to why this application should not be complied with, made the following order.(The receipt of this order will be deemed to be the receipt of notice in the case). ORDER :
-
"This application is moved for suspending the operation of the Notification dated 10.03.2020 published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette No.335 and for such other orders as may be necessary.
This court has heard Sri Ashok Bhan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Advocate General appearing for the 1% to 5% respondents.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners argues that the draft notification dated 10.03.2020, which has been impugned in the Writ Petition has been issued in order to circumvent the findings in 1.A.No.1 of 2020 in W.P.(PIL) No.49 of 2020 and other matters, which were disposed of by the Full Bench of this Court by common orders dated 23.03.2020. It is his contention that the Full Bench has granted a stay of various G.Os., that were issued and which were the subject matter of the said "taken up PIL". Apart from that coming to the case on hand iearned senior counsel submits that action of the State in publishing the Notification is totally contrary to the scheme of APCRDA Act itself. According to him under Section 41 of the Act, modification of a sanctioned plan can only be made based on a reference from the local body concerned. The submission is made relying on 41(1) of the Act. Relying on section 41(1) and 41(3) of the Act also the learned senior counsel submits that the procedures stipulated have not been followed. He also relies upon the notification dated 31.03.2016, published in the gazette, wherein it is notified to the public that a change in land use proposals can only be done after there is a development impact assessment. In the case on hand, learned senior counsel points out that a reading of the document viz., the impugned notification, does not show any reference to an impact assessment study.
Apart from that learned senior counsel submits that they have submitted videos, which would show that the work is actually going on in the site in the villages. The statement is in ground-B in the grounds of appeal which is relied upon by the learned senior counsel. At the request of this Court the advocate on record has uploaded the videos showing the purported execution of the work. The office of the Advocate General also acknowledged the receipt of the same during the hearing. Therefore, tearned senior counsel submits that since there is an imminent threat and the entire exercise, according to them is contrary to the statutory provisions it is a fit case in which the Court should interfere and grant Interlocutory Order as prayed for.
In reply to this, learned Advocate General points out that there have been instances where changes have been made to the land use proposals following the very same procedure followed by the Government in this case. In the course of his submission, the learned Advocate General relied upon three earlier instances wherein the same procedure has followed to change the land use. He relies on the uploaded copies of the earlier GOs to support this argument. Relying upon the Section 38 (5) of the Act, learned Advocate General submits that the power is vested in the authority to revise and review the plans. He also relies upon Section 41 (5) of the Act and argues that the modification can also be effected to the sanctioned development plan at the instance of the land owners. Therefore, learned Advocate General argues that the submission of the learned senior counsel that the request for modification of the plan should only come from local authority in terms of Section 41 of the Act is not correct. He points out that a reference can come from the land owners also. Learned Advocate General also relies upon Section 38 (2)(q) of the Act which also indicates (according to him) that the proposals can come from the public. Lastly, learned Advocate General tas submits that the Writ Petition is premature as the representations made by the petitioners are also pending with the authority. He seeks time to file a detailed counter also and states that in this case the authority has meticulously followed the procedures stipulated and the earlier practices. It is his contention that the provisions of the Act 11 of 2014 have also been followed.
This Court after hearing the learned senior counsel and the learned Advocate General notices that the issues raised by both the learned counsel are issues which require further detailed hearing and also appreciation. A detailed counter affidavit is also necessary. The presence of respondents 6 te 10 also necessary. However, the point raised by the learned senior counsel that the work is in progress and the contours / physical features of the land are changed into the smaller plots is something that cannot lost sight of. In paragraph 28(b) of the Writ Petition the petitioners have stated clearly that the tenders were called for and the successful contractor has already deployed men and machinery to earmark the layout etc. The photographs and videos dated 06.04.2020 are also mentioned in the said paragraph. These have been uploaded as per the learned counsel for the petitioners and the receipt of the same is also acknowledged by Sri sumon, learned Advocate representing the learned Advocate General. However, he has raised a dispute about the lack of a date etc., in these photographs.
At this stage, this Court has to form a prima facie opinion oniy. Prima facie, the petitioners have come to the Court and has raised an issue which in the opinion of this Court deserves further investigation and hearing. The legal issues raised by the learned senior counsel and also the learned Advocate General merit further hearing. However, in this interim period if the contours of the land or the physical features are actually altered, the loss to the petitioners would be irreparable. In the opinion of this Court, petitioners have made out a prima facie case both on law and on fact. If the work is allowed to continue and / or 3 party interests are created, the petitioners will be left virtually remediless. The objections and suggestions have admittedly, not yet been disposed of. The work is continuing despite the pandemic. The summer vacation is also round the corner.
Hence this Court is of the opinion, for the reasons mentioned above, that a prima facie case is made out and there is a likelihood of irreparable loss. So there shall be interim suspension of the operation of the Notification, dated 10.03.2020, including all further activities in the sites, which are the subject matters of the writ petition, till 17.06.2020, In this period, respondents 1 to 5 shall file their counter affidavit.
Learned counsel for the petitioners is also permitted to take out personal notices to respondents 6 to 10 by RPAD and file proof of service in the Registry.
List on 17.06.2020."
SD/- V.SA VITHRAMMA , ASSISTANT REGISTRAR for ASSISTANT' TRAR
1.The Chief Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Building-1, 1°* Floor, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, A.P
2.The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District
3. The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District //TRUE COPY// To Contd...4...
4.The Chairman, Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority, Karl Marx Road, Lenin Centre, Arandalpet, Governorpeta, Vijayawada.
3. The Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority, Karl Marx Road, Lenin Centre, Arandalpet, Governorpeta, Vijayawada.
6. The Panchayat Secretary, Krishnayapalem Gram Panchayat for Krishnayapalem Village, Krishnayapalem, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. 7, The Panchayat Secretary, Nidamarru Gram Panchayat for Nidamarru Village, Nidamarru, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District.
8.The Panchayat Secretary, Kuragallu Gram Panchayat for Kuragallu Village, Kuragallu, Mangatagiri Mandal, Guntur District.
9.The Panchayat Secretary, Mandadam Gram Panchayat for Mandadam Village, Mandadam, Mandadam Mandal, Guntur District.
10.The Panchayat Secretary, Inavolu Gram Panchayat for Inavolu Village, Inavolu, Mandadam Mandal, Guntur District. (Addressee No. 1 to 10 by RPAD)
11.Two CCs to the Advocate General, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati(OUT)
12.One CC to Sri Sai Sanjay Suraneni, Advocate(OPUC)
13.Two spare copies.
TKK HIGH COURT DVSS.J & LK.J DT.15-05-2020.
ORDER 1.A.No. 1 of 2020 iN W.P.No. 8472 of 2020 INTRIM SUSPENSION