2024 (12) TMI 1013 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court sets aside land allotment to housing society for manipulating membership to meet eligibility criteria

PROPOSED VAIBHAV COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

PROPOSED VAIBHAV COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. - 2024 INSC 971 Issues Involved:1. Eligibility and composition changes of MRCHS.2. Compliance with the Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Land) Rules, Maharashtra, 1971, and Government Regulations dated 09.07.1999.3. Allegations of nepotism and arbitrariness in the allotment process.4. Discretionary allotment without reasons.5. Transparency and procedural adherence in land allotment.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility and Composition Changes of MRCHS:The judgment highlights significant issues regarding the eligibility and composition of MRCHS. Initially, the society applied for land allotment citing members as doctors from Tata Memorial Centre. However, upon scrutiny, it was found that many members were ineligible due to income limits. The composition of the society changed multiple times, with resignations and new inclusions, yet members failed to meet eligibility criteria. The court noted that the original objective of providing housing to doctors near their workplace was not satisfied as none of the members were employees of Tata Memorial Hospital.2. Compliance with Rules and Regulations:The court examined compliance with the Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Land) Rules, 1971, and GR 1999. Rule 27 and relevant clauses from GR 1999 outline the procedure for land allotment, requiring detailed submissions from the Chief Promoter and public notification for available plots. The judgment found that MRCHS was allotted a different plot than applied for, without adherence to the prescribed procedure. The court emphasized the necessity of transparency and adherence to these rules, which were lacking in MRCHS's case.3. Allegations of Nepotism and Arbitrariness:The judgment underscores allegations of nepotism and favoritism towards MRCHS. Despite repeated findings of ineligibility and changes in society composition, the Chief Minister intervened multiple times, affording MRCHS further opportunities. The court noted that the entire process suggested favoritism, as the society was not initially eligible for the allotment, and the final allotment was made after several changes and interventions, raising questions about the fairness of the process.4. Discretionary Allotment Without Reasons:The court scrutinized the discretionary allotment of land to MRCHS, noting the absence of stated reasons as required under Clause 12(8) of GR 1999. The judgment found that the nondisclosure of reasons rendered the allotment arbitrary. The Letter of Intent and Letter of Allotment did not provide any justification for exercising discretion in favor of MRCHS, further supporting the court's conclusion of arbitrariness.5. Transparency and Procedural Adherence:The judgment emphasizes the importance of transparency and procedural adherence in government land distribution. It criticizes the lack of transparency in MRCHS's allotment, highlighting that the process should have involved public notification and a public draw, as more than two plots were available. The court referenced past judgments to support its stance on the necessity of following established procedures to ensure fair and transparent land allotment.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and quashing the Letter of Allotment dated 10.04.2008 in favor of MRCHS. The court found the allotment process to be arbitrary, lacking transparency, and in violation of established procedures and eligibility criteria. The judgment underscores the need for adherence to rules and transparency in the distribution of public resources.