High Court asks Andhra Pradesh govt to put housing scheme on hold
VIJAYAWADA: In a major obstacle to the state federal government, Andhra Pradesh High Court directed it not to proceed with building of houses under its flagship programme ‘Navaratnalu-Pedalandiriki Illu’ in the land allotted to the beneficiaries until a report sent by an unique committee customizing the designs.
A single judge bench headed by Justice M. Satyanarayana issued the order here on Friday mentioning that allotment of websites for domestic function was inadequate for real estate on account of cluster real estate and group real estate, the environment effect on health threats, fire security, adequacy of drinking water and centers to drain out sewage water were to be examined before building home in the website allocated to them. The court observed that no study was taken up on such issues by the state federal government up until now.
The bench observed, “The court is not against allotment of home websites to women, however it amounts to discrimination. For that reason, I feel that it is appropriate to direct the participants to think about the eligibility of men and transsexual for allocation of home site. At the very same time, with regard to result of health, physical, mental, spiritual, educational and financial development with recommendation to human rights ensured under Short article 21 of Constitution of India, it is appropriate to analyze the problem by a committee of specialists to increase the level of land allotted and to be set aside based upon the report to be sent by it.”
The court directed the state government to appoint an unique committee including experts from Central Contamination Control Board, union ministry of housing and city advancement and union ministry of health and household well-being to examine the concerns and submit a report within one month afterwards and invite objections from the public and finalise the plan Navaratnalu-Pedalandiriki Illu for building and construction of houses in the websites keeping in view several concerns as discussed above.
The court observed that if the policy decision of the state federal government was violative of any essential right or human rights, it was bound to interfere with such decisions. The court stated the GOs provided previously as ‘prohibited and approximate’ and set them aside.
Published at Fri, 08 Oct 2021 22:06:40 -0500