9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Allotment of Government Land to Political Parties. 2. Alienation of Land by A.P. Housing Board. 3. Validity of G.O. Ms. No.76 and Sale Deed. 4. Powers of Government under Section 79 of the A.P. Housing Board Act. 5. Cancellation of Sale Deed. 6. Earlier Allotments to Political Parties. 7. Exercise of Discretionary Jurisdiction under Article 226. 8. Delay and Laches. 9. Locus Standi of the Petitioner. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Allotment of Government Land to Political Parties: The judgment notes that the practice of allotting government land to recognized political parties for establishing their party offices is common in several states and at the Centre. However, the court did not examine whether such allotment at a nominal value violates Article 14 of the Constitution, as the pleadings were insufficient and other recognized political parties were not respondents in the writ petition. 2. Alienation of Land by A.P. Housing Board: The court examined whether the land belonging to the A.P. Housing Board could be alienated under G.O. Ms. No.76 dated 25.11.2005 for the construction of a political party's state headquarters without adhering to statutory conditions and procedures prescribed under the A.P. Housing Board Act, 1956. The court found that the Board, a statutory body, did not have the power to sell or lease land not comprised in a sanctioned housing scheme. 3. Validity of G.O. Ms. No.76 and Sale Deed: The petitioner challenged G.O. Ms. No.76 as arbitrary, illegal, ultra vires the provisions of the Act, and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court held that the sale deed executed by the Board in favor of the third respondent was a consequence of the impugned G.O. and was ultra vires Section 45 of the Act, as the land was not situated in an area comprised in a sanctioned housing scheme. 4. Powers of Government under Section 79 of the A.P. Housing Board Act: The court examined whether the government could issue directions to the Board under Section 79(1) to alienate its land. The court concluded that Section 79(1) does not empower the government to issue directions for purposes alien to the Act and that such directions must be necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of the Act. The impugned G.O. was found to be ultra vires Section 79(1). 5. Cancellation of Sale Deed: The court addressed whether a sale deed registered under the Indian Stamp Act and the Indian Registration Act could be challenged in writ proceedings. It held that since the sale deed was executed contrary to statutory provisions and was a void document, it could be declared invalid by the court. 6. Earlier Allotments to Political Parties: The court rejected the argument that earlier allotments to other political parties justified the impugned allotment. It held that illegal or unwarranted orders could not be the basis for issuing a writ compelling the authority to repeat the illegality. 7. Exercise of Discretionary Jurisdiction under Article 226: The court emphasized that it would not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 except in larger public interest. It noted that the power under Article 226 is discretionary and should be exercised to promote justice and public interest, not merely to correct errors of law. 8. Delay and Laches: The court considered the delay in challenging G.O. Ms. No.76 and found that the petitioner had approached the court without undue delay, as the land was still vacant and no third-party rights had arisen. It held that respondents could not rely on delay and laches to defend ultra vires acts. 9. Locus Standi of the Petitioner: The court addressed the issue of the petitioner's locus standi and concluded that the petitioner, a registered society working for slum dwellers' rights, had sufficient interest in the matter. It rejected the argument that the petitioner was acting for extraneous reasons and held that the petition was in the nature of a class action. Conclusion: The court declared G.O. Ms. No.76 dated 25.11.2005 and the sale deed executed by the A.P. Housing Board in favor of the third respondent as ultra vires Sections 45 and 79(1) of the A.P. Housing Board Act, 1956, and consequently quashed them. The writ petition was allowed without costs.
|
