The Supreme Court has ruled that the allocation of house sites in the R5 zone of Amaravati to the poor is contingent upon the final judgment of the AP high court. The court refused to grant a stay on the allocation, stating that third-party rights are also subject to the high court's decision. The farmers of Amaravati argued that the government had changed the master plan and allocated housing sites in non-residential zones. The court has been urged to impose a stay on the R5 zone until the Amaravati petitions are heard in July 2023.
In a recent development, the Supreme Court has made a significant ruling regarding the allocation of house sites in the R5 zone of Amaravati for the benefit of the poor. The court has declared that this allocation is subject to the final judgment of the Andhra Pradesh (AP) high court, thereby indicating that the fate of the house sites hinges on the high court's decision.
The Supreme Court, however, declined to grant a stay on the allocation of house sites by the state government in the R5 zone. This decision came after the AP government argued that it had already assigned sites to eligible individuals. The court emphasized that the rights of third-party plot holders are also contingent upon the high court's judgment.
During the court proceedings, the senior counsel representing the farmers of Amaravati presented their arguments before the bench comprising Justice KM Joseph and Justice Aravind Kumar. The counsel contended that the farmers from 29 villages in Amaravati had willingly contributed their valuable land under the land pooling scheme, envisioning future development prospects. The government had convinced these farmers by presenting a master plan that included the proposal for nine cities. However, it was alleged that the master plan was deceitfully altered, resulting in the allocation of housing sites in non-residential areas.
In light of these circumstances, the farmers pleaded with the court to impose a stay on the R5 zone until the hearing of the Amaravati petitions scheduled for July 2023.
Countering these arguments, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the state government, submitted that out of the total land area of 34,000 acres, the government had allocated a mere 900 acres, which amounts to only 3.1 percent, for the benefit of the underprivileged population.
It is worth noting that the Supreme Court's ruling has brought some clarity to the ongoing dispute over the allocation of house sites in the R5 zone of Amaravati. By deferring the final decision to the AP high court, the Supreme Court has acknowledged the significance of the high court's verdict in determining the legitimacy of these allocations. As the legal battle unfolds, it remains to be seen how the high court will evaluate the arguments put forth by both the farmers and the state government, and what impact their decision will have on the lives of the poor who are eagerly awaiting the fruition of their housing aspirations.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
