Subscribe
Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Supreme Court on Friday, August 14, declined to interfere with the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision to quash a 2021 criminal case against Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu and former minister Ponguru Narayana over alleged irregularities in the Amaravati land pooling scheme.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, dismissed a challenge filed by former YSRCP MLA Alla Rama Krishna Reddy against the High Court’s July 15 order.
Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, representing Alla Rama Krishna, argued that the case involved alleged irregularities relating to nearly 30,000 acres of land belonging to more than 25,000 farmers.
The Chief Justice said the concerns of farmers would be protected but questioned why the criminal case had been pursued by a political rival when no farmer had approached the court. He also remarked that political disputes should not be settled through the courts.
The Supreme Court made it clear, however, that the High Court’s ruling on the Naidu-Narayana case would not affect any other legal proceedings against Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu. Other cases, if any, must be examined separately on their own facts and merits.
The case dates back to March 2021, when the Crime Investigation Department (CID) registered an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act following a complaint by Alla Rama Krishna, who was then the MLA from Mangalagiri.
The allegations centred on changes made to the Amaravati land pooling framework. The complaint claimed that amendments allowed certain categories of assigned land to be brought under the scheme, allegedly benefiting private individuals and encroachers while causing losses to poorer landowners.
Amaravati’s land pooling programme was introduced as an alternative to compulsory acquisition. Farmers who gave up agricultural land were promised developed residential and commercial plots in return. Government records state that 28,181 landowners from 25 villages contributed around 35,215 acres for the proposed capital city.
The complaint further alleged that some farmers, including members of weaker sections and Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities, were pressured or misled into surrendering their assigned lands. It also accused middlemen of exploiting their concerns over the future of the land.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, however, held that the criminal case was largely based on government policy decisions and executive orders. Justice Y Lakshmana Rao observed that treating policy-making and the issuance of government orders as criminal conspiracy was not legally sustainable.
The High Court also noted that the Amaravati land pooling decisions had gone through established government processes and had received legislative backing. It concluded that the FIR lacked a sound legal basis and was motivated by political vendetta.
