Andhra Pradesh High Court Passes Interim Orders on the PIL Challenging E-Auction of Government Lands

Must Read

Kerala High Court Rejects Writ Petition for Rejection of Loan Application

Case: Anvardeen. K v. Union of India. Coram: Justice P.V. Asha On 24th November 2020, The Kerala High Court involving a...

Supreme Court: Maritime Board Must Not Wallow in Inaction and Be Arbitrary in Its Contractual Duties

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that a State instrumentality such as the Maritime Board is expected...

Supreme Court: Right to Property Is a Constitutional Right, the Essence of Rule of Law Protects It

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court has held that permitting the State to assert indefinite right upon one’s...

Madras High Court Directs Tahsildar To Issue Origin Certificates To Two Sisters in Two Writ Petitions

Two Writ Petitions by two siblings was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitions owed to...

Delhi High Court Directs Centre and Delhi Govt To Consider a PIL Seeking Paid Menstrual Leave as Representation

The Delhi High Court had provided direction to consider a petition as representation. The Central and Delhi governments were...

Follow us

Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the State Government to continue e-auction process. It directed the government not to approve tenders or bids for the sale of land subject to its judgment.

Brief Facts of the Case 

Five persons filed a PIL challenging government’s decision to e-auction government lands. The government had proposed to start e-auction from May 28. It got carried under ‘Mission Build AP.’ Social activist Suresh Babu, Dr. M Sailaja, Himabindu and K Malyadri filed PILs against the sale of land in Guntur. Further, K Tata Rao challenged the land sale in Visakhapatnam.

Petitioner’s Contentions

They appealed the Court to issue interim orders to stop the e-auction to start from May 28. The counsel for petitioners argued that the sale will benefit private players only. He said that according to the 2012 land allotment policy, the government can’t sell lands for revenue. He added that the government is trying to sell land donated by the people and it didn’t have the right to sell them.

Government’s Contentions

The government argued that the process of selling unused government land is a policy decision and it isn’t new. It told the Court that the policy decision has taken up after following all procedures. The government relied on various Supreme Court judgments.

Additional AG informed the Court that the government will use funds for schemes like Navaratnalu and Nadu-Nedu. He told that e-auction has deferred to June 11-13.

Court’s Order

The Division Bench comprising of Justice AV Seshasai and Justice B Krishnamohan heard the PIL. After hearing the parties, the Court remarked:

“It seems the people of the state are rich, but the government is poor.”

It asked the government if it has gone bankrupt and does not have enough funds to meet development work. Also, it questioned the government whether it has no other option but to sell government land to carry out the development work. The Court observed how it is possible that a state having thousands of kms of the coastal area doesn’t have proper funds to carry out development work.

As a result, the Court rejected the petitioner’s request to pass interim orders preventing the government from proceeding e-auction of the government land.

The High Court on Thursday, May 28, issued interim orders and allowed the state government to proceed with e-auction of government lands under ‘Mission Build AP’. Additionally, the Court ordered the government not to allot land to bidders until its next orders on this matter.

Next hearing of the petition is in the list for June 18.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & 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.

Latest News

Supreme Court : High Courts Have Sole Authority Under Article 226 To Decide Validity of Tax Provision, Even if Matter Is Sub-Judice Before Income...

A Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that the validity of a provision is a serious matter which could only be decided by...

Kerala High Court Rejects Writ Petition for Rejection of Loan Application

Case: Anvardeen. K v. Union of India. Coram: Justice P.V. Asha On 24th November 2020, The Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the...

Supreme Court: Maritime Board Must Not Wallow in Inaction and Be Arbitrary in Its Contractual Duties

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that a State instrumentality such as the Maritime Board is expected to act without any arbitrariness...

Supreme Court: Right to Property Is a Constitutional Right, the Essence of Rule of Law Protects It

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court has held that permitting the State to assert indefinite right upon one’s property, without any legal sanction...

Madras High Court Directs Tahsildar To Issue Origin Certificates To Two Sisters in Two Writ Petitions

Two Writ Petitions by two siblings was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitions owed to the fact that they were...

Delhi High Court Directs Centre and Delhi Govt To Consider a PIL Seeking Paid Menstrual Leave as Representation

The Delhi High Court had provided direction to consider a petition as representation. The Central and Delhi governments were directed to consider the same....

Madras High Court Reiterates That ‘Ignorance of Law’ Is Not an Excuse and Dismisses Petition by a Constable

A Constable committed bigamy and deserted his service for more than 21 days. After dismissal from his service, he moved to Tamil Nadu Administrative...

Transfer of Winding-up Proceedings Allowed Under S. 434, Restrictions Under 2016 Rules To Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

This appeal relates to the question of transfer of winding-up proceeding from the High Court (Company Court) to the NCLT.  Facts M/s. Girdhar Trading Company, 2nd...

Constitutional Court of South Africa Declares Provisions of Domestic Workers’ Injury Compensation Legislation To Be Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in Sylvia Mahlangu v Minister of Labour , declared parts of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases...

Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Cancelled Under Section 439(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the right of default bail of the Accused can be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Facts...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -