Summary
The Supreme Court quashed the State's allotment of a government plot at Bandra to a proposed co-operative housing society, holding that the allotment of a plot the society never applied for, made under the discretionary quota without reasons, without public notice or draw, and after repeated changes in membership to meet eligibility, was arbitrary and in breach of the 1971 Rules and the Government Resolution of 09.07.1999.
Issues
- Whether the allotment of government land to the fifth respondent society complied with the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Land) Rules, 1971 and the Government Resolution of 09.07.1999.
- Whether the allotment was arbitrary, having regard to the society's changing membership, the eligibility of its members and the absence of reasons and of a public process.
Provisions considered
- Rule 27, Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Land) Rules, 1971Governs grant of building plots to co-operative housing societies on concessional terms having regard to members' income; the Court found the allotment violated the procedure and eligibility criteria applicable under it. (¶¶ 7, 12)
- Clause 6, Government Resolution dated 09.07.1999 (Revenue and Forest Department, Maharashtra)Requires the chief promoter to give details of the land sought; the society was allotted a different plot from the one it applied for, which by itself vitiated the allotment. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- Clauses 11 and 12(4), Government Resolution dated 09.07.1999 (Revenue and Forest Department, Maharashtra)Where more than one or two plots are available, the Collector must issue a press note inviting applications and allot by public draw among eligible applicants; since more plots were available, the plot should have been allotted that way. (¶¶ 7, 10)
- Clause 12(8), Government Resolution dated 09.07.1999 (Revenue and Forest Department, Maharashtra)Requires written reasons when plots are allotted in exercise of discretionary powers; neither the Letter of Intent nor the Letter of Allotment gave reasons, showing the allotment was arbitrary. (¶¶ 7, 8)
Held
- Allotting a society a plot that it never applied for, contrary to the requirement that the chief promoter specify the land sought, by itself vitiates the allotment. (¶ 8)
- An allotment under the discretionary quota without written reasons, as the Resolution requires, is arbitrary. (¶ 8)
- Where two or more plots were available in the layout, including the plot itself split into two, the land had to be offered by press note and allotted by public draw; following Angarki Coop. Housing Society, disposing of it by an isolated procedure was arbitrary. (¶ 10)
- A society allowed to change its membership repeatedly after the Letter of Intent so as to meet eligibility, when the stated object of housing Tata Memorial Centre doctors could no longer be achieved, could not validly obtain the allotment; S.V. Asgaonkar v. MMRDA was distinguished on this ground. (¶¶ 6, 9, 11)
- Land is a precious community resource and the State must at least be transparent in distributing it; the allotment here, made after repeated interventions from the Chief Minister despite official recommendations to cancel the Letter of Intent, was wholly arbitrary and violated the procedure and eligibility criteria. The appellant's own claim to allotment remains for the authorities to decide. (¶¶ 4, 5, 6, 12)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment of 24.02.2012 set aside; Letter of Allotment dated 10.04.2008 in favour of the fifth respondent society quashed; interim orders vacated.