Andhra Pradesh HC reserves verdict on Amaravati farmers’ plea against GO 45

The petitioners’ counsel requested the court to stay the allotment of house sites till the Supreme Court gives its verdict on the capital city.
Andhra Pradesh High Court. (File photo)
Andhra Pradesh High Court. (File photo)

VIJAYAWADA: The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has reserved its verdict on a petition filed by farmers of Amaravati challenging the GO 45 issued by the government transferring 1,134 acres of land from APCRDA to the collectors of Guntur and NTR districts for the purpose of housing for the poor in the capital region and seeking an interim stay, till Friday.

A division bench, comprising Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari heard the petition on Wednesday.

Additional Advocate General Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy said why the petitioners are opposing the government’s move to allot house sites to the poor in the capital region. Not willing to have poor in the capital region, the previous government did not allocate an inch of land for them, though the APCRDA Act stipulates that 5% of the land has to be allocated to the poor.

Ponnavolu said for every issue, they cite the order of the court verdict on the capital, but the fact remains that nowhere has the court said the poor should not be allotted house sites in the capital region. When the petitioners approached the Supreme Court, they were asked why they were objecting to the house sites to the poor and unable to answer, they withdrew the petition. “Now, they return to the High Court to raise the issue again,” he said.

He argued that the government has no role in the allotment of land in the capital region and it is being done as stipulated in the APCRDA Act. He further pointed out that in the agreement with CRDA, the farmers have agreed not to go to court for any stay, but now they are violating it.

Appearing for petitioners, Devadutt Kamat and VSR Anjaneyulu argued that as the capital city issue is in the court, allotment of land at this juncture is not proper. It is against the High Court verdict on the capital city, in which it categorically stated that a third party cannot be given any rights, but the government is acting against the verdict, they said. The petitioners’ counsel requested the court to stay the allotment of house sites till the Supreme Court gives its verdict on the capital city.

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com