HC reserves interim order on construction of houses for poor in R-5 zone
VIJAYAWADA: The Andhra Pradesh High Court asked the state government a pointed question on Friday -- Who would take responsibility in case an adverse judgment is given on the construction of houses for the poor in the R-5 zone in Amaravati?
In such a situation, who would answer for the amount spent on these dwelling units and for allowing the beneficiaries to spend their money on them, the court asked.
A division bench of Justices DVSS Somayajulu, Manavendranath Roy and Ravinath Tilhari heard a batch of petitions filed on GO-45, which related to the allotment of house sites to the poor in the Amaravati area. After hearing both parties, the bench reserved its interim order.
The bench observed that the state government while issuing pattas to the beneficiaries, has stated that the allotment of house sites was subject to the final verdict of the high court. The case was pending in both the HC and SC. So, how could the state government go ahead with the distribution of the house sites without waiting for the final orders, the bench asked.
Petitioners’ counsels Dammalapati Srinvias, Unnam Muralidhara and Karumanchi Indraneel argued that the state government was going ahead with the allotments even as the issue was still pending before the court. If an adverse order came from the court, the present governmental actions could result in a wastage of hundreds of crores spent on the land, they said.
As the state government was getting ready to lay the foundations for the houses for the poor on July 24, counsels sought an interim order to stall the construction of these houses.
However, additional advocate general Ponnavole Sudhakar and advocate Kasa Jaganmohan argued that as per CRDA norms, five per cent of the total acquired land has to be used for the construction of houses for the poor. With no land allotted for this purpose in the master plan, the government allotted land for the poor by taking a part of the land allotted for developing the Electronic City.
The government is of the view that as the SC did not issue any stay order on GO-45, it could go ahead with the construction of houses, the court was told.
