NEW DELHI: YS Jagan Mohan Reddy’s government on Monday heaved a sigh of relief as the Supreme Court on Monday stayed high court’s order asking the State government to develop and construct Amaravati capital city and region within six months.
“Can the HC become a town planner?” the bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna remarked.
The court also stayed HC’s ruling of directing the State and AP Capital Region Development Authority
(APCRDA) to complete process of redevelopment of Amravati Capital City within one month and hand over developed reconstituted plots in Amaravati capital region to land holders who surrendered their lands within three months.
Frowning upon the HC’s time bound directions, Justice BV Nagarathna said, “It’s for the State to decide where the capital should be. HC has overstepped its limits and it can’t become an executive.”
The judge further said, “Making capital in one place is one issue and city is the other issue. Can the HC become town planner? The court wants planning to be done in two months. Even drawing can’t be made
and they’ve issued directions? Can HC issue directions by assuming power of executive? Courts are not
governments. It cannot. Be subject matter of constitutional court to issue continuous mandamus.”
The bench also issued notice in pleas filed by AP government against the HC’s ruling of declaring ‘Amaravati’ as the State’s capital. In March, HC bench, comprising Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justices M Satyanarayana Murthy and DVSS Somayajulu, directed the State and APCRDA to build and develop Amaravati capital city and capital region within six months as agreed under the APCRDA Act
and Land Pooling Rules.
High Court ordered govt to hand over plots to landowners in 3 months
The high court had also directed for handing over the developed and reconstituted plots belonging to landowners in Amaravati capital region within three months.
The court had also said that the State Assembly had no “legislative competence” for passing any resolution or law for change of capital or bifurcating or trifurcating the capital city. The HC had thus effectively preempted the State’s move to revive its ‘threecapitals’ proposal. Appearing for the State of AP, Senior Advocate KK Venugopal contended that nothing survived in the issue since the State government had withdrawn the two legislation’s that were challenged in the HC while the arguments were going on.
He further added that the high court could not have directed the executive to pass such a law. “Courts can’t go into a purely academic issue,” he had argued. Also for the State, Senior Advocate Niranjan Reddy had said that as the AP Capital Region Development Authority Act was repealed, the old Act would come into implementation.
To persuade the bench to not issue notice as well as grant interim relief, advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the farmers who had agreed to pool their lands, said the State had collected more than 33,000 acres from over 29,000 farmers.
“They have to go back to the HC and tell about a realistic time frame and also explain why nothing happened after May 2019. As many as 29,000 families have abandoned their livelihood,” Divan further added. The State government in its petition before the apex court has argued that the HC’s judgement was violative of the doctrine of separation of powers