VIJAYAWADA: The State government on Tuesday submitted to the Andhra Pradesh High Court that it has been implementing the court orders to develop Amaravati region in six months and at the same time reminded the court that it has sought five years time in this regard.
The submission was made to a three-member division bench, comprising Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice DVSS Somayajulu and Justice C Manavendranath Roy. The bench was dealing with contempt of court petitions filed by D Sambasiva Rao and T Srinivasa Rao, both farmers from capital region.
Petitioners' counsel U Muralidhar Rao argued that the court directions for the development of the Amaravati capital city and the region in one month time were not followed. Hence, the contempt of court petitions were filed and secondly development of the plots given to farmers was also not done, he stated.
In his counter argument, Advocate General S Sriram said the government had already filed a petition in the court seeking five years time for developing the plots given to farmers in lieu of the land taken from them.
Further, a status report of the works done in the capital region following the court orders was also submitted. The government had already deposited Rs 8.5 lakh with the High Court Registry towards the court expenses of farmers, he said.
In her counter petition, Special Chief Secretary (Municipal Administration and Urban Development) Y Srilakshmi said administrative approvals were given for infrastructure development regarding the lower income group houses in Amaravati.
"Tenders were called for 60 different works worth Rs 91.51 crore. The constructions will be completed by October. Already 369 sale deeds were given to beneficiaries. Annuity for the farmers under the land pooling scheme for the current fiscal was released. Works are being done in 5,024 plots at eight different locations," she said.
Hearing arguments from the both sides, the bench observed that filing a single contempt of court petition would have sufficed. It further pointed out that media reports indicate works are under progress in the capital region and also pointed out that a counter petition seeking additional time was filed.
The bench said when the court expenses were already deposited, there was no need for any directions on the supplementary petition for the same. It directed the petitioners to file a reply affidavit.
The counsel for the State urged the court to remove the Assembly from the list of respondents in payment of the court fees to the petitioners. He was asked to file an affidavit. Setting aside the petitioners' request for adjournment of the case hearing to next week, the court posted it to August 23.