05/10/2024
గ్రామకంఠం 2008 లో నే నిర్ణయం చేయబడిన ప్లాన్... వాటిని మార్చే అధికారం crda కి లేదు...
గ్రామకంఠం అభ్యంతరాలను crda అదనపు కమిషనర్ కి వచ్చే శుక్రవారం రైతులు అందరూ ఇవ్వండి...
ఒక కాపీ వారి చేతికి ఇచ్చి రెండో కాపీ మీద కమిషనర్ చేత సంతకం చేయించుకొని మీ దగ్గర ఉంచుకొodi....
రైతులు అందరూ ఒకటిగా ఉండండి
Thulluru
07/10/2024
To
The Commissioner,
APCRDA,
Thulluru, Amaravathi
Sub: Demarcation ofvillage sites according to the law and exclude them from LPS and LA.
residents of villages of amaravati
And legitimate owner of village residential site, to an extent of ....... (ey in survey number ...........
It is well known that after AP state reorganization act our residual state has become a capital The present Government has come up with a proposal to set up capital city with an arca of 217 sq km coveringtulluru, tadepalli,and mangalagirimandals partially excluding the villages there in,
The Government intended to take all reaming area in the said boundary excluding the
village settlements through LPS&LA We weleomed the move by the government as they have said it to be a people's capital and we participated in the LPS and contributed our lands to the
capital city project,
political representatives has bosted about the future benefits, safe guarding our village
settlements according to the existing laws, best R&R packages and other benefits as stated in
schedule.
To the utter surprise nothing is in line with, what is said.We can understand the
noncompliance in benefits as it involves the financial matters, and regarding plotting,
we understand the ground reality in the delay
To our surprise even after three years, village settlements were not demarcated properly, some elite were benefited while others were put to harassnent in the name of LA
We feel, we are cheated by the bureaucrats, in deciding the village settlements through we have cooperated for the capital formation,
Though the law doesn't permit, farmers of Gannavaram are being allotted plots in the capital city
at the cost of capital city farmers. Various private organizations are being allotted land in the
capital city at through away prices. We took it in right spirit and answered ourselves that, it is being done in the best interest of the state,but the authorities are not getting hands to do justice to the problem of village settlements.
The authorities have chosen to go for LA rather than to negotiate through negotiation settlement plan, with the farmers who have contributed their life i.e. agriculture lands,
We feel betrayed by the authorities. Though they doesn't have the power to do so, they are trying
to bulldoze us with iron clutches in the nane of LA and suppress and unfair awards,
Hence we protest this process and come to grievance cell for the redrasell,
TheGrounds ofGrievances are:
1) VGTM-UDA, through a constitutional process has framed the zonal developmental plans
andaccordingly the village residential area has been earn marked. when the village is
under control of UDA for planning and development,at the first stage competent
authority for land acquiring, a special deputy collector in the capacity of an individual
cannot decide the village contrary to zonal development plans.
The acquiring officer
doesn't have the discretary power to decide some patches of land as part of the village
and some are not.
2) In the second stage, the commissioner who is head of CRDA should have known the
importance of development plans and zonal plans of earlier regimes which are
accordance with the existing laws, acts and constitution, If he had known that a developmental plan is followed by zonal plan and a zonal development plan followed by
town development schemes, he would have followed the guidelines in accordance with
Zonal plans.
A state government scheme cannot superside the central act of urban areas
act 1975, hence the commissioner acted in contrary to the existing plans in deciding the
Village sites and he used his own discretion to decide the village sites which is against
the natural justice.
3) At the third stage, appeal authority was appointed by the GO.MS.NO. 139 dated
03/06/2015, without any guidelines, rules regarding appeal mechanism. The appeal
authority can just decide whether the act of first officer or commissioner are in accordance with the law or contrary to the law, though he doesn't have any guidelines to
bear the matters he without even giving us the opportunity of being heard, he unilaterally
decided the appeals. And unconstitutionally decided the appeals, selecting some patches
of lands to be left and some rejected with self reclaimed discretary powers.
All above
three officers acts are unconstitutional and contrary to the existing laws in seting the
village boundary.
4) Our village has been nagarpanchayath by virtue of AP urban development areas act 1975,
our village has been earn marked by the authority namely VGTM-UDA, Through the
master plan and zonal developmental plans in the year 2008 itself, through G.O MS.NO
385, 335, 323 BY MA &UD in year 2008. Basing on the zonal development plans,
Village residential area is demarcated and we are getting the building plans, layout plans
from VGTM-UDA till now up to enactment of APCRDA.
5) In the APCRDA act in sec 135 it says this act is in addition but not derogatory to other
laws, on the other hand it says it says it has an over-riding effect of overall such laws, this
15 a contrary to the norms, it cannot overlook central acts.
6) As per the fifth schedule of APCRDA act in point no 5 which states that certain plans
already prepared and sanctioned are deemed to have been prepared and sanctioned under the act, land2, which envisages that master plans and zonal development plans published by local body or urban development authority concerned and sanctioned by the
government before commencement of the act shall continue to be in force unless
prepared afresh and superseded or revised under this act. in the absence of any
modification to the zonal development plans, the existing plans are applicable and
hiorce. lown planningscheme is a part of the zonal development plans and it cannot
superseded.
7) Furthermore according to the constitutional amendments 73 and74, the local bodies have
the highest priority in framing the plans for development in making the plans of capital
City But no such local bodies were included, You have brought the plans from Singapore
and imposed on us. Neitherpanchayath nor municipalities and district planning
Committees were not taken in to the consideration. By eliminating us you have deprived
our nght to protect our interest in framing the village sites.
8) As per part IX and IXA of constitution, a zonal plan has to be framed by democratic
institutions as prescribed under its provisions,A town planning scheme has to be within
the limitations of zonal development plans, but In present case the zonal development
plans has been put to rest with APCRDA act, which is against the constitution, and has
resulted in depriving our right to protect our village residential sites.
9) Furthermore it is very clear from the verdict of Honorable Supreme Court of India in the
case of Rajendra Shankar shukla and ors.etc Vs state of Chhattisgarh and ors.etc on dated
29, July, 2015 a bench of V. Gopala Gowda, C.Nagappan. Whichstraightly resembles our
case, where the necessity of town planning and zonal development plans to imnplement the schemes, this case is very much related to APCRDA in present situation, and the
order of Supreme Court is against the state, which correlates to all the objections raised
by us.
10) As the honorable supreme court has clearly defined the functions of the local bodies in
accordance with 73 and 74 constitutional amendments and the necessity of zonal
development plan as per part IX and IXA of constitution, and this cannot be deviated by
the government authorities, As this order is supreme and binding all, no authority can
Violate the order. We request the grievance authority to take note of the order and after
careful study, consider our rightful objections and do the justice, any violating actions to
the honorable supreme court order may result in serious legal implication.
Hence we request you toTake all the above points in to consideration and set aside proceedin gs if
any, either through LA or LPS and declare our lands as village settlements. Thanking you.
Yours sincerely
Enclosures;
Honorable supreme court judgment, Document no 29446724.
GOMS. No 385, 335, 323 may 2008.
