Appeal against CRDA admitted

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar was dealing with the petition by two former judges Justice A. Gopala Rao, Justice P. Lakshmana Reddy, A.B.K. Prasad, journalist and C. Sadasiva Reddy, advocate questioning the validity of the Act.

The bench expressed its disinclination to grant any interim relief as sought by the petitioners. The petitioners urged the court to grant an interim order by restraining respondents from proceeding any further pursuant to the Act till final disposal of their plea seeking to declare the Act as unconstitutional and ultra vires of the AP Reorganisation Act, 2014. The bench made it clear that the balance of convenience is not in favour of interim orders and if the petition fails the cost escalation may not be compensated but if the petitioners succeed, the status can be restored.

D. Prakash Reddy, senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that as per Section 6 of the AP Reorganisation Act, it is clear that the responsibility for identifying the capital was taken over by the Centre.

He told the court that an expert committee constituted by the Centre regarding the new capital has suggested that while constructing the new capital the government shall cause least possible dislocation to existing agriculture systems as well as ensure minimum resettlement of people and their habitations.

The Land Pooling Scheme is nothing but another form of land acquisition and AP has no power to go ahead contrary to provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. When the bench asked counsel to explain the grounds for the PIL, he replied that the Act was contrary to Article 3 and 4 of the Constitution and Section 6 of the Reorganisation Act.

While pointing out that the LPS is a voluntary scheme, the bench said that issues raised in the petition are debatable and need detailed examination. While admitting the petitions, the bench directed the AP’s advocate general to file a counter affidavit by June 10 and directed the registry to post the petitions three weeks after June 10 for further hearing.