Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

e. direct the Respondents to forthwith forbear from acting pursuant to or in furtherance of the report of the High Powered Committee dated 17.01.2020 directing the Respondents to forthwith forbear from shifting any of the offices of the 3 civic wings of the State including but not limited to the Raj Bhavan, Chief Ministers Camp Office offices of the Secretariat Heads of Departments of the Government Police Department State Corporations State Government Offices and Officers from their current locations in CJ, MSM,J and DVSS,J W.P.Nos.13203 of 2020 & batch and around Amaravati and from trifurcating the Capital for a period of 30 years or such time as this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case f. direct the Respondents to implement the Master Plan as notified on 23.06.2016 under Section39 of the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014, including by constructing the necessary buildings and housing the offices of the 3 civic wings of the State Government including the Executive Judiciary and Legislature in Amaravati.

b. The Respondents have suo moto sought to modify the Master Plan vide Gazette notification No. 355, MAUD (APCRDA) Department, dated 10.03.2020. They have made their intention clear to do away with the concept of electronic city (which is one of the 9 thematic cities within Amaravati). In its Affidavit dated 01.02.2022 the State has contended that the Master Plan can be revised, reviewed or modified unilaterally by the Respondent Authority under Section38(5) or the proviso to Section39(2) of the APCRDA, Act. And also, under Section41 of the APCRDA Act. It is the submission of the Petitioners that the Master Plan cannot be amended unilaterally by the Respondents and can only be amended upon a reference by the local bodies in Amaravati.

102) A legitimate expectation does not arise when it is made ultra vires of the decision-maker's statutory powers, that is, when the decision-maker lacked legal power to make the representation. Courts are reluctant to protect such an expectation that has been created. In the present case, Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority is invested with such power to pass subordinate legislation i.e. land pooling scheme and to enter into Development Agreement - cum - Irrevocable General Power of Attorney in Form-9.14 in terms of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014. As such, such Development Agreement - cum - Irrevocable General Power of Attorney in Form-9.14 created bilateral legal obligations between the parties under the Development Agreement - cum - Irrevocable General Power of Attorney in Form-9.14. Various obligations that cast upon the state instrumentality i.e. Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority are more in particular, as per Development Agreement - cum - Irrevocable General Power of Attorney in Form-9.14, as modified by G.O.Ms.No.52 Municipal Administration & Urban Development (M2) Department dated 16.03.2015. The reason for adopting Andhra Pradesh Capital CJ, MSM,J and DVSS,J W.P.Nos.13203 of 2020 & batch Region Development Authority Act, 2014 is the recommendations made by Sivaramakrishnan Committee making three recommendations for choosing capital city for the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh. One of the recommendations is to establish Green Field Capital City. The Legislature in its meeting passed a resolution to establish Green Field Capital City in Amaravati. The present Chief Minister of the State who was the opposition leader in the Assembly along with the other People Representatives, unanimously accepted the proposal made by the then Government in power without any protest. Thus, they gave consent and on the basis of such resolution, G.O.Ms.No.253 M.A & U.D (M2) Department dated 30.12.2014 and G.O. i.e. G.O.Ms.No.254 M.A & U.D (M2) Department dated 30.12.2014 were passed declaring Amaravati as the capital city, thereby, the scheme was formulated basing on the power that is invested with the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority for land pooling. In terms of the land pooling scheme, the farmers of the Capital Region Area including Capital City entered into Development Agreement - cum - Irrevocable General Power of Attorney in Form-9.14 accepting that single capital constituting Executive, Judiciary and Legislature would be established in Amaravati. In fact, the authority has taken up the works and completed part of the works. Therefore, the farmers who entered into Development Agreement - cum - Irrevocable General Power of Attorney in Form-9.14 legitimately expected that the capital includes Executive, Judiciary and Legislature at Amaravati Area. But, now a proposal is made by Act 28 of 2020 which was repealed during the pendency of petitions dividing CJ, MSM,J and DVSS,J W.P.Nos.13203 of 2020 & batch single capital into three capitals as Executive Capital, Judicial Capital and Legislative Capital, proposing to shift the Executive Capital to Visakhaptnam and Judicial Capital to Kurnool in terms of Section8 of Act 28 of 2020, but A.P. Act Nos.27 & 28 of 2020 are repealed while intending to present a suitable legislation in future addressing all the concerns of all the regions of the State favouring decentralization, as per the statement of objects and reasons of repeal Act No.11 of 2021. On account of this proposal, the legitimate expectation of the farmers who entered into Development Agreement - cum - Irrevocable General Power of Attorney in Form-9.14 are totally frustrated in view of the serious consequences that flow from such proposed shifting, as development activities in the land pooled are abandoned. Hence, we find that there is a representation i.e. agreement between Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority and the ryoths/farmers and thereby, question of unilateral exercise of power to decentralization of the make such representation does not arise.

113) The principle laid down in the above judgment is applicable to the present facts of the case, for the simple reason (1992) 4 SCC 477 CJ, MSM,J and DVSS,J W.P.Nos.13203 of 2020 & batch that, the then Government took a decision to declare Amaravati as Capital City, in view of the unanimous resolution passed in the Assembly, thereby accepting the recommendation made by Sivaramakrishnan Committee to establish Green Field Capital city. But, the present Government in the Assembly took a policy decision to trifurcate the single capital and establish an Executive Capital at Visakhapatnam and a Judicial Capital at Kurnool, while continuing Legislative Capital at Amaravati, however the policy became Act No.28 of 2020, but was repealed by Act No.11 of 2021. Thus, on account of proposed change of policy, nothing will remain in Amaravati, where Legislative Capital is proposed to be continued. When Amaravati is declared as Legislative Capital, no development will take place, except construction of building(s) for holding meetings whenever the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council meets on summoning by the Governor of the State, by exercising power under Article 174 of the Constitution of India.