Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nunna Keshava Rao, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 14 August, 2020
Author: M.Ganga Rao
Bench: M.Ganga Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY * : PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO - IA No. 1 OF 2020 - IN WP NO: 5808 OF 2020 - Between: Nunna Keshava Rao, S/o Nagabhushana Rao. Adhikari Satyanarayana, S/o Satyanarayana. Tadi Narasimha Rao, S/o Tata Rao. - Rajulapudi Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Swamy. Sunkara Manikanta, S/o Swamy Naidu. Tadi Narasimha Rao, S/o Nageswara Rao. OuakWN> ...Petitioners AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. The Principal Secretary, Panchayatraj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Guntur, A.P. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj Department, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada. The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. ' The Godavari Urban Development Authority, Kakinada, represented by its Vice Chairman and MD Kakinada, East Godavari District. Oak wo N .. Respondent(s) Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI BALAJI MEDAMALLI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT . Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of G.O.Ms.No.79 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (H1) Department, dated 28.01.2020, pending disposal of WP No.5808 of 2020, on the file of the High Court. 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). The Court made the following ORDER
"Sri Satya Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri Balaji Medamallai, learned counsel for the petitioners, would contend that the issuance of the notification through G.O.Ms.No.96, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (H1) Department, dated 15.03.2017, creating 6th respondent Development Authority by including two urban local bodies i.e., Tuni and Ramachandrapuram Municipalities and 74 villages of 7 mandals covering 74 villages with a total extent of 557.3 Sq. Kms. in Godavari Urban Development Authority Region, Kakinada, is contrary to the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the A.P. Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 (for short 'the Act'), wherein it is clearly states that only the urban areas and their periphery are only included in the urban development area but not all the villages and rural areas. By virtue of creating the 6th respondent, the Government has taken away the powers and functions of local bodies and municipalities in contravention of the provision of Article 243W of the Constitution of India and also the functions of Eleventh Schedule thereunder. Even before preparation of Master plan as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act, it is orally stated that the people residing within the gram panchayat area are not allowed to make constructions as per the permission granted by the local authority. ° Learned Government Pleader appearing for 1st respondent -- Government would contend that the petitioners have no locus standi as their rights are not affected. It is only a notification constituting the 6th respondent Development Authority and states that the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act state only the inclusion of the areas as defined under Section 2(46) of the Act and there is no illegality in the G.O. issued by the 1st respondent by including all the villages in the notification. Under Section 11 of the Act, the 6th respondent Authority has every power to prepare the Master plan for the development of the area and it cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary.
This Court, on considering the submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of provisions of Sections 100 and 104, makes it clear that the 6th respondent authority is the authority to levy development and other charges, but it may unnecessarily burden on the rural people who are residing purely in rural areas and thereby the cost of living will be enhanced, and will be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, there shall be a direction to the 6th respondent not to interfere with the functioning of the local bodies, gram panchayats and municipalities as stated in Section 3(4) of the Act. The authority is also directed not to interfere with the powers and functions of the local authority entrusted as per the existing rules and provisions of law in granting construction permissions, levying development charges and layout plan before preparing Master plan by the 6" respondent."
wh SD/- V.DIVAKAR + ASSISTANT REG IITRUE COPY// Hebe For ASSISTANT TRAR The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. The Principal Secretary, Panchayatraj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati.
The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Guntur, A.P. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj Department, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada. The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada.
The Godavari Urban Development Authority, Kakinada, represented by its Vice Chairman and MD Kakinada, East Godavari District.(1 to 6 By RPAD) One CC to Sri Balaji Medamalli, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] One spare copy 4 fo) t co PN OAR WON SP HIGH COURT MGRJ DATED:14/08/2020 ORDER IA No. 1 OF 2020 IN WP.No.5808 of 2020 DIRECTION