[BREAKING] Andhra Pradesh High Court directs State to complete construction of Amaravati in 6 months

The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Thursday directed the State government to construct and develop the Amaravati capital city and capital region of the Andhra Pradesh State within six months [Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh]..A Full Bench of the Court comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra, M Satyanarayana Murthy and DVSS Somayajulu rendered the decision in the “three capitals case” challenging the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Repeal Act, 2020 (introduced by the YS Jagan Mohan Reddy-led government.“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-cum Irrevocable General Power of Attorney in Form 9.14, provisions of Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority (APCRDA) Act and Land Pooling Rules, 2015,” the Court held..The Full Bench held that the legislature had no legislative competence to pass any law for change of capital, bifurcating or trifurcating the capital city..The crux of the batch of petitions was a tussle between poor landowners who claimed that they sacrificed their livelihood by surrendering their agricultural land into a Land Pooling Scheme for development of capital city and capital region with the government.The State failed to undertake development of infrastructure and hand over the developed plots as agreed, it was contended..The batch of petitions also challenged the “three capitals” law and sought a declaration that the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Repeal Act, 2020, was ultra vires the Constitution of India.However, during the subsistence of the pleas, the government itself opted to withdraw the decision to have three administrative capitals for the State..[BREAKING] Amaravati to be sole capital of Andhra Pradesh, 3-capital bill to be repealed: State govt to AP High Court.Resulting from this withdrawal, the Advocate General contended that the petitions had become infructuous and thus, must be dismissed. Senior Advocate Shyam Divan who represented the petitioners, on the other hand, argued that all reliefs except the constitutionality of the Act survived for adjudication.The High Court agreed with the petitioners and said that the other reliefs, particularly the legislative competency of the Andhra Pradesh State legislature and other reliefs, survived for adjudication..The High Court opined that the question of legislative competence survived as a result of the purpose of withdrawal of the earlier Act, which was to “further study and consultation to impart further clarity for the policy of the decentralisation”. This implied that the State was till deciding on decentralisation.“Court is of the opinion that as the decision is imminent and as the law on the subject is clear this Court can or rather it must decide this issue at this stage only,” the order explained..Pursuant to a detailed discussion on the issue, it was held that the State legislature lacked competence to make any legislation to shift, bifurcate or trifurcate the capital and Heads of Departments of the three wings of the government including the High Court to any area other than the capital city..Apart from this, it was the High Court’s finding that the respondents failed to keep up their promise to the petitioners who surrendered their only source of livelihood expecting developed, reconstituted plots. It was the State’s obligation to complete the process by 2018.By not doing so, they violated the petitioners fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 and the right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.“When the State and APCRDA failed to maintain the trust and acted against good governance and violated the constitutional trust, the Court while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can issue appropriate direction to complete the development activities,” the Court stated..The Full Bench addressed the question of whether a change in government could result in a change of policy or if the government was liable to continue the capital city and region development projects undertaken by the earlier regime.It was clarified that change in government was not a ground for change in policy, and the current government was under a legal obligation to complete previous projects..The Court took a clear stand that the Notified Master Plan could not be modified suo motu by the State government..With these observations, the Court directed the State and the APCRDA to complete the process of development and infrastructure in the Amaravati Capital City and Region and provide basic amenities like roads, drinking water, drainage, electricity within one month.The State and the APCRDA were directed to complete the town planning schemes.Further, they were directed to handover developed, reconstituted plots in Amaravati on ground to land holders who surrendered their land as promised by the State, within three months..[Read Order]