2024 (12) TMI 1013 - SC - Indian Laws

Declination to interfere in the allotment of land by the RespondentState to Medinova Regal Cooperative Housing Society - Eligibility and composition changes of MRCHS - HELD THAT - MRCHS proposed members in their initial application were subsequently changed thrice, in order to somehow meet the eligibility criteria. When MRCHS replied to the Letter of Intent on 28.02.2003, the proposed society had removed 5 of its members out of the list of eleven earlier submitted alongwith their application. These names were deleted on the grounds that they were ineligible. Had this been the case, why were they included in the first place? The only purpose therefore why these names were shown were because they were all doctors of Tata Memorial Centre on whose names ostensibly MRCHS was trying to get the allotment made. It was even noted by the Revenue Forest Department, Govt. of Maharashtra that the main object behind sanctioning of the plot of land to MRHCS i.e., to provide housing to the doctors working at Tata Memorial Hospital in close proximity to their workplace can no longer be achieved, due to changes in the composition of the society. In this case as well, no documents have been placed on record by MRCHS or the State to show that when the Letter of Intent was issued in their favour, more plots were unavailable in the layout as prepared under Rule 24 - MRCHS had applied for allotment of a different plot which is also at Village Bandra and part of the same Survey Number and hence at the very least there were more than two plots available for allotment in this layout when the Letter of Intent came to be issued in favour of MRCHS. In S.V. ASGAONKAR AND ORS. VERSUS THE MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. 2018 (4) TMI 1996 - SUPREME COURT this Court upheld the dismissal of the appellant society s writ petition against the finding of ineligibility of its members. It was observed that the Society was conscious of the fact that eligibility of members has to be seen as on 11122003 that is the date on which letter of intent was issued in pursuance of allotment. The Society having accepted the aforesaid clause of eligibility and accepted the offer of allotment as given by the Authority, it is failed to see that how the eligibility as on 11-12-2003 be permitted to be questioned . However, in the present case, not only were MRCHS proposed members found ineligible, but the society was allowed to change its members frequently, starting from the point when it accepted the Letter of Intent in its favour. The order of the High Court of Bombay set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

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.