Government land allotment must follow transparent procedure, recorded reasons, and eligibility norms; unexplained discretionary grant was quashed.

Disposal of government land for a proposed cooperative housing society must follow the prescribed allotment procedure, including disclosure of the specific land sought, scrutiny of eligibility criteria, and transparent selection where public notice or competitive consideration is required. Repeated changes in membership and a shift in the project objective undermined the claimed eligibility basis, and the process lacked the transparency required for public land allotment. A discretionary grant of a different plot was also unsustainable because the record did not disclose reasons for departing from the normal procedure or for preferring one society over others. The grant was quashed for want of procedural fairness, transparency, and compliance with the governing framework.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the allotment of government land in favour of the proposed cooperative housing society was vitiated for non-compliance with the prescribed allotment procedure and eligibility requirements; (ii) Whether the allotment of a different plot, without disclosed reasons for exercise of discretionary power, was arbitrary and unsustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the allotment of government land in favour of the proposed cooperative housing society was vitiated for non-compliance with the prescribed allotment procedure and eligibility requirements.

Analysis: The governing framework required the Chief Promoter to furnish particulars of the specific land sought, invited public access to available plots through press notice where the scheme so required, and mandated scrutiny of applications on stated criteria. The society's membership changed repeatedly, the claimed project objective shifted, and the materials showed that the members ultimately linked to the society were not shown to satisfy the original eligibility basis. The process also lacked the transparency expected in disposal of public land.

Conclusion: The allotment was invalid and could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the allotment of a different plot, without disclosed reasons for exercise of discretionary power, was arbitrary and unsustainable.

Analysis: The society had applied for one plot, but the land ultimately allotted was a different plot. The record did not disclose reasons justifying departure from the normal procedure or explaining the exercise of discretion in favour of a particular society. Where more than one plot was available, the procedure required competitive consideration and, where applicable, allotment by public draw rather than an unexplained discretionary grant.

Conclusion: The allotment was arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The grant in favour of the proposed cooperative housing society was quashed for want of procedural fairness, transparency, and compliance with the governing allotment framework.

Ratio Decidendi: Disposal of government land must conform to the prescribed procedure, and any discretionary allotment must be supported by recorded reasons and transparent compliance with the applicable eligibility and selection norms.

---