1.

Andhra Pradesh Government Decides To Withdraw 'Three Capitals' Law

 The Andhra Pradesh Government has decided to withdraw three capitals proposal and

has decided to repeal the Laws paving way for three capitals of Andhra Pradesh.

 As per media reports, the Advocate General for the State of Andhra
Pradesh, Subrahmanyam Sriram has informed the High Court about the decision of the
Government to take back the contentious laws.

 This decision of the Andhra Pradesh Government would mean that the A. P.
Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of All Regions Act 2020 and Andhra
Pradesh Capital Region Development (Repeal) Act 2020 would be taken back.

 The State Cabinet has decided to keep Amaravati as Andhra Pradesh state's capital.

 Essentially, these Acts propose the formation of three capitals for the state. The Acts
intend to develop Amaravati, Visakhapatnam, and Kurnool as the legislative, executive
and judicial capitals respectively.

 The Acts were challenged in the High Court by farmers and the matter is presently being
heard before the High Court.

 Before the Court, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the farmers, argued that
around 33,000 families of Amravati had given up their land for capital development, and
now, they have no sustainable means of livelihood.

 Significantly, he had also argued that the power to make/decide upon the capital is of
parliament under Article 3 and 4 of the Constitution as fixing of new capital is constituent
power of the parliament under these articles.

 Referring to the 2014 Act, Senior Advocate Divan contended that the Parliament
intended to make one capital for the State [Act uses the term 'a capital'], however, he said
 that this necessarily doesn't mean only one capital, but the Act of 2014 intended to create
a capital city for the state of Andhra Pradesh.

2. Civil Court Cannot Declare Orders Passed Under Urban Land Ceiling Act
As Illegal Or Non Est: Supreme Court

 The Supreme Court held that the civil courts has no jurisdiction to try suit relating to land
which is subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,
1976.

 Civil court cannot declare, orders passed by the authorities under the ULC Act, as illegal
or non est, the court said.

 In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit against a notification under Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976 on the ground that the possession was not taken, before the Urban
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 came into force. This suit was decreed
by the Trial Court. The appeal and thereafter the second appeal was dismissed against
this Trial Court judgment.

 In appeal before the Apex Court, the defendant contended that the plaintiff has not
questioned the orders passed by the competent authority declaring the land as surplus
land and that the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of ULC Act.

 The court noted that the land in question is in the Urban Agglomeration and covered by
the ULC Act, 1976.The court also found that the possession of the land was not only
taken but same is utilised for a public purpose. In this context, the bench comprising
Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy said.

 The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is a self-contained Code. Various
provisions of the Act make it clear that if any orders are passed by the competent
 authority, there is provision for appeal, revision before the designated appellate and
revisional authorities. In view of such remedies available for aggrieved parties, the
jurisdiction of the civil courts to try suit relating to land which is subject-matter of ceiling
proceedings, stands excluded by implication. Civil court cannot declare, orders passed by
the authorities under the ULC Act, as illegal or non est. More so, when such orders have
become final, no declaration could have been granted by the civil court
 It was contended that, if the suit filed as prayed for is not maintainable, this Court can
mould the relief by issuing appropriate directions. In this regard, the bench, while
allowing the appeal said: It is trite principle that where the suit is filed with particular
pleadings and reliefs, it is to be considered with reference to pleadings on record and the
reliefs claimed in the suit only.

3. Sameer Wankhede Vs Nawab Malik Defamation Suit- "Public Have Right

To Examine And Comment On Actions Of Public Officials, After Reasonable
Verification Of Facts": Bombay HC

 Maharashtra Cabinet Minister Nawab Malik has raised very important issues

concerning the acts and conduct of NCB officer Sameer Wankhede who is a public
official, the Bombay High Court said in its detailed order refusing ad-interim relief in
the defamation suit filed by Dhyandev Wankhede.

 The court refused to temporarily restrain Malik from making public statements or social
media posts against NCB's Zonal Director Sameer Wankhede and his family.

 Justice Jamdar held that for a public official to make out a case for damages, he must
prima facie show the defendant failed to reasonably verify facts.
 "The public have right to examine and comment on actions of public officials. However,
as held by the Supreme Court it has to be done after a reasonable verification of the
facts….In case of public officials right to privacy or for that matter remedy of action for
damages is not available with respect to their acts and conduct relevant to discharge of
official duties. It is to be established that such publication is totally false and that the
same has been done without reasonable verification of the facts," the court held.
 The court noted Malik's counsel's arguments that evidence produced by the Minister has
helped the government machinery to take corrective steps and a vigilance inquiry is now
pending against him. Malik alleged that despite being born a Muslim, Wankhede entered
the Indian Civil Services under the category of Scheduled Caste.

 The court thus held:

1. "Reputation being an inherent component of Article 21, it should not be allowed to be

sullied solely because another individual can have its freedom. Therefore, the balance
between the two rights needs to be struck.

2. "Reputation" of one cannot be allowed to be crucified at the altar of the other's right of
free speech.

3. Right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this
country by Article 21. It is a "right to be let alone". A citizen has right to safeguard the
privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child bearing and
education among other matters.

4. None can publish anything concerning these matters whether truthful or otherwise
without citizen's consent.

5. However, publication concerning the aforesaid aspects becomes unobjectionable if such

publication is based upon public records including Court records. This is so as once a
matter becomes the matter of public record, the right to privacy no longer subsists and it
becomes legitimate subject for comment by press, media and others.

6. In case of public officials right to privacy or for that matter remedy of action for damages
is not available with respect to their acts and conduct relevant to discharge of official
duties. It is to be established that such publication is totally false and that the same has
been done without reasonable verification of the facts.