'Can High Court Become Town Planner?" : Supreme Court Stays AP HC Direction To Develop Amaravati Capital City Within Six Months' Time

In the plea pertaining to the Andhra-Pradesh Three Capitals row, the Supreme Court, on Monday, stays certain time-bound directions passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, including the one directing the State to construct and develop Amaravati capital city and capital region within six months time. The directions of the High Court that a Bench comprising Justices K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna has categorically stayed till the next date of hearing are as under - The State and APCRDA are directed to complete the process of development and infrastructure in the Amaravati Capital City and Region providing basic amenities like roads, drinking water, drainage, electricity in terms of Section58 of APCRDA Act read with Rule 12(6) of Land Pooling Rules, 2015 within one month from the date of this order.The State and APCRDA are directed to complete the Town Planning Schemes as per Section 61 of APCRDA Act.The State is directed to construct and develop Amaravati capital city and capital region within six months time, as agreed in the terms and conditions of Development Agreement-cumIrrevocable General Power of Attorney in Form 9.14, provisions of APCRDA Act and Land Pooling Rules, The State is directed to construct and develop Amaravati capital city and capital region within six months time, as agreed in the terms and conditions of Development Agreement-cumIrrevocable General Power of Attorney in Form 9.14, provisions of APCRDA Act and Land Pooling Rules, 2015.The State and APCRDA shall develop the reconstituted plots belonging to land owners in Amaravati capital region by providing approach roads, drinking water, electricity connection to each plot, drainage etc. to enable the same to be fit for habitation in the Amaravati Capital city. The State and APCRDA are further directed to deliver/hand over the developed reconstituted plots in Amaravati capital region, on ground, to the land holders who surrendered their land as promised by the State, within three months from the date of this order. The Bench issued notice in the petition filed by the State and connected petitions and directed that the process of serving of notice to be completed by the last week of December. The Bench has decided to hear the matter next on 31st January, 2023. As the Bench was inclined to grant stay on some of directions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court noting that it sets out unrealistic time-lines, Senior Advocate Mr. Shyam Divan, appearing for a society of farmers, vehemently opposed the grant of interim stay. He submitted that in the alternative it can be indicated that no contempt proceedings would be initiated based on the time-lines laid down by the High Court and in the interregnum, the State Government is to submit an affidavit before the Apex Court stating the realistic time-line. Questioning the workability of the time-line as mentioned in the High Court order, Justice Joseph stated - "Direction 5 is completely unacceptable, that you develop the capital city in 6 months…What do you mean by capital city?" Justice Nagarathna also remarked, "What kind of directions have the High Court passed. Can the High Court become a town planner and a chief engineer? The Court has no expertise in such matters, therefore we do not interfere. Without expertise…the High Court wants an entire city to come up in two months." Justice Nagarathna was also of the opinion that the ruling of the High Court was in the nature of an advance ruling, wherein in the absence of any legislation, the High Court went ahead and decided on legislative competence to enact the legislation. "Can there be advance ruling in legislative competence in the absence of an Act?...There is no legislation." At the outset, Senior Advocate, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the State, pointed out that since the Act, which indicates three capital cities have been repealed, nothing really survives in the matter. Justice Joseph was curious about the rights of the farmers who had pooled-in their land on the promise that the capital city would be developed in Amravati. He was of the opinion that the prayers regarding promissory estoppel, statutory contract entered between the farmers and the State might survive. "I think some things survive. There were prayers w.r.t promissory estoppel by farmers etc." Mr. Venugopal submitted that even when the Act has been repealed, if the Court still goes on and decides on the legislative competence on the basis of apprehension of trifurcation then it would be interfering with the powers of the legislature. He added - "Now the High Court could not have directed the legislature to pass a law in a particular manner, nor could they have directed the legislature not to pass an order. This is in the realm of separation of powers." He argued that deciding the issue of legislative competence in the absence of any legislation is purely...

'Can High Court Become Town Planner?" : Supreme Court Stays AP HC Direction To Develop Amaravati Capital City Within Six Months' Time

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags