About Housing for Poor Scheme
On March 23, 2020, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh issued an interim stay order on Go No. 107. The scheme was issued by the State Government as a part of the ‘Navarathanlu Pedalandiriiki Indlu’ (Housing for Poor Scheme), to distribute house sites for the poor. The scheme aimed to allocate 1,250 acres of land as house sites for the poor.
The Court also issued a stay order on the implementation of GO No 44 issued by the State Government on February 12 as the relief in the interlocutory application are one and the same. The High Court division bench comprised of Justice AV Sesha and Justice M Satyanarayana Murthy to deal with the petitions filed, challenging the two GO’s and issue directions to the Government.
The writ petitions were filed by the residents of Thulluru, Krishnayapalem and other villages of the capital area, who have had to surrender their land to the capital region development or for Andhra Capital City under Land Pooling Scheme.
Arguments before the Court
The petitioners argue that according to the Andhra Pradesh Capital City Land Pooling Scheme (Formulation and Implementation) Rules 2015, it is the responsibility of the Government to provide housing to stakeholders residing within the area under Land Pooling Scheme who are houseless as well as those losing their houses in the course of development. It is the further case of the petitioners that the said land cannot be and ought not to be allotted to non-stakeholders i.e. persons who are not residents of the capital city area. The core contention is that the purpose of the entire scheme would be defeated if the land is allotted to non-stakeholders.
Court’s Decision
In the absence of the Chief Justice, the Division bench passed the interim stay order for housing for poor scheme. It was stated that the land pooled for capital Amaravathi was not be allotted to the poor. The court made it clear that only the Land Allotment Scrutiny Committee (LASC) or CRDA are empowered to issue house sites. The State Government directly issuing a GO to do so would be intervening in the CRDA rules. The court made it clear and stressed that government measures should not be in contravention to the CRDA rules.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
