Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on December 12, 2024, said that land is a precious material resource of the community and therefore the least which is required from the State is transparency in its distribution, as it quashed allotment of land made to a cooperative housing society in Mumbai in 2008 at the instance of the then Maharashtra Chief Minister.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah found complete arbitrariness in allotment of land in favour of Medinova Regal Co-operative Housing Society as it was not proper and was violative of the procedure as well as eligibility criteria.

Court allowed the civil appeal filed by Proposed Vaibhav Cooperative Housing Society Limited against the Bombay High Court's division bench judgment of February 24, 2012, which had declined to interfere with the allotment of land made on April 10, 2008, in favour of Medinova Regal Co-operative Housing Society (MRCHS).

"The entire history of how the plot came to be allotted to MRCHS shows nepotism and favouritism for a society which was not even eligible in the first place for this allotment. A perusal of the records shows that not a single member of the society, is a doctor at Tata Memorial Hospital. Leave aside a doctor, not one member is an employee of Tata Memorial Hospital which was the projection earlier and for which the plot was sought to be allotted. The composition of this society has also now completely changed from its original composition," the Supreme Court noted.

In an application made to the then Maharashtra Chief Minister in 2000 for allotment of a plot at Bandra, it was mentioned that the members of applicant society worked in Tata Memorial Centre, a leading hospital and research institute for cancer, and these members did not own any house, despite living in Maharashtra for the last twenty years or so. Further, they had said that they had been residing at places which were at quite a distance from their workplace and thus found travelling difficult and time consuming, although as doctors they had to reach their hospital in time in order to respond to emergencies.

In 2003, a letter of intent was issued for a different plot than the one applied for. In 2004, due to change in composition of society members, Joint Secretary opined that the letter of intent in MRCHS’ favour should be cancelled. The then Chief Minister rem,arked “please resubmit the file with the latest position".

More than two months after on September 21, 2004, the then Joint Secretary again recommended for cancellation of letter of intent.

"The Chief Minister again intervened and directed scrutiny of the second proposal by MRCHS. The composition of the proposed MRCHS has changed thrice already,yet they are afforded another opportunity by the Chief Minister," the court noted.

This time, the Principal Secretary (Revenue) by a note on May 17, 2005 recommended cancellation of the letter of intent due to change in composition of society members and their ineligibility.

"On 03.04.2006, the Chief Minister sent the file back with the remarks “Last opportunity be provided to the society and concerned Collector should complete the action.” This direction sounds more like a command given by the Chief Minister. Once this direction was given by the Chief Minister, things started moving smoothly for MRCHS as the Joint Secy found 13 members out of their 29 members to be eligible for granting final membership. Consequently, Letter of Allotment was issued in favour of MRCHS on 10.04.2008," the bench noted.

The court pointed out that the appellant had taken it through the office noting of MRCHS’ file which clearly suggested that the concerned authorities were not favourably inclined to allot the plot to MRCHS and the matter kept lingering since the year 2000, on one pretext or the other and thereafter as late as in 2006 one last opportunity was given to MRCHS and after 8 years and countless changes in the membership of the society the land was allotted to them, that too a different plot than the one they applied for.

The court further noted there are rules and regulations laying down a detailed procedure for allotment of land to any Proposed Co-operative Housing Society. As per these regulations, the Chief Promotor of the Proposed Society is required to submit specific details, like Survey Number, Area, local plan etc, of the land which is sought to be allotted. Clause 11 provides the mechanism by which the public can get to know that government land is available for allotment and can apply for the same. Also, if land is allotted under the discretionary powers of the government, then it is necessary to give reasons in writing as to why such allotment is made in favour of a particular society.

"Since there has to be transparency in matters of allotment of land by the government, adherence to the above rules and regulations becomes important in the cases of allotment, but unfortunately, all this is completely missing in the present case where allotment was made in favour of MRCHS in total violation of the prescribed procedure," the bench said.

The court also noted that major changes were made on the maximum income requirement, allowing people with higher incomes to become members of such society who were seeking grants of land from the State.

However, it must be noted that MRCHS had applied for a different plot than what they were ultimately allotted. Nothing has been brought to our notice which would even remotely indicate that the plot actually allotted to MRCHS was ever sought by them. This by itself vitiates the entire allotment, the bench said.

The court thus said as far as the present appellant was concerned, its case for allotment of a plot was a matter which was yet to be decided by the authorities, but the allotment of the plot in favour of MRCHS was not proper as it was violative of the procedure as well as eligibility criteria.

Case Title: Proposed Vaibhav Cooperative Housing Society Limited Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors