legislature, executive and judiciary, which are essential to the State administration. “Therefore, it is for Parliament to set up three organs of the State, i.e.
“supplemental, incidental or consequential provisions”. The most debated part of this verdict is likely to be the court’s opinion on the Assembly’s legislative competence, State’s power to choose or change a capital and finally, the very interpretation of the AP Reorganisation Act, 2014, with regard to the capital.Referring to the judgement in Mangal Singh vs Union of India, wherein the apex court dealt with Articles 2, 3 and 4, and analysed the words “supplemental, incidental or consequential provisions,” the bench said Parliament alone is competent to deal with the setting up of legislature, executive and judicial organs of the State, and it is implicit in the language employed in Article 4 of the Constitution of India, i.e. The bench also imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on respondents (State government) to be payable to some of the petitioners.
Ruling that the State and APCRDA must discharge their duties enshrined under Schedule II and III and Land Pooling Rules, 2015, the bench instructed them not to alienate/mortgage or create any third party interest in the land pooled except for the construction of capital city or development of the capital region. It also directed the government and APCRDA to complete the Town Planning Schemes as per Section 61 of the APCRDA Act.
Hearing a batch of petitions filed by Amaravati farmers, a three-member bench led by Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, delivered the judgment.In its 307-page verdict, the bench directed the State government and the APCRDA to hand over the developed and reconstituted plots belonging to land owners in Amaravati capital region within three months. Similarly, it ordered that the process of development of infrastructure in the Amaravati Capital City and Region, providing basic amenities like roads, drinking water, drainage and electricity, be completed within one month.
0 kommentar(er)
