Original jurisdiction in case of Robert T. Quirk, Leonard Hoak, General Association to Stop Pollution, Inc., Sierra Club -- Pennsylvania Chapter and Lancaster Environmental Action Force v. Schuykill County Municipal Authority, Crown American Corporation and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, No. S-339-1979.
No appearance for plaintiffs.
Frank L. Tamulonis, Zimmerman, Lieberman & Derenzo, for defendant, Schuykill County Municipal Authority.
Leroy G. Adams, Lipkin, Marshall, Bohorad & Adams, P.C., for defendant, Crown American Corporation.
Kenneth B. Kauffman, Assistant Attorney General, with him Harvey Bartle, III, Acting Attorney General, for defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Rogers and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson, Jr.
[ 54 Pa. Commw. Page 620]
The Court of Common Pleas of Schuykill County transferred to the Commonwealth Court's docket an amended complaint in equity against the defendants Schuykill County Municipal Authority (Municipal Authority), the Crown American Corporation (Crown) and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, challenging the transfer of a tract of land in Schuykill County from the Municipal Authority to Crown. The land transferred by the Municipal Authority was purchased with financial assistance under the Project 70 Land Acquisition and Borrowing Act (Project 70 Act), Act of June 22, 1964, Special Sess., P.L. 131, 72 P.S. § 3946.1 et seq. By the Act of April 18, 1978 (Act 1978-32), P.L. 64, the General Assembly approved the transfer of the tract to Crown in exchange for a parcel of land containing the Mud Run Dam.
The amended complaint alleges that Act 1978-32 violated certain provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution, most notably Article I, Section 27, and requests this Court (1) to set aside and declare void the deed from the Municipal Authority to Crown and to order Crown to reconvey the tract to the Municipal
[ 54 Pa. Commw. Page 621]
Authority, (2) to enjoin the Municipal Authority from conveying to third parties any part of the tract, (3) to declare Act 1978-32 unconstitutional and void, (4) to enforce the penalties and equitable remedies set forth in Section 20 of the Project 70 Act, 72 P.S. § 3946.20, against the Municipal Authority, and (5) to order the Municipal Authority to comply with the Project 70 Act in all other respects regarding the subject parcel.
Presently before the Court are defendants' preliminary objections raising, inter alia, the questions of lack of ...