1. Allotment of government land to privileged classes at basic rates via government memoranda — Challenge to constitutional validity under Article 14. (Para 2 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1083
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJIV KHANNA, CJI., DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
State of Andhra Pradesh And Others – Appellants
Versus
Dr. Rao, V.B.J. Chelikani And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 3791-3793 of 2011 With Civil Appeal Nos. 3794-3796 of 2011 Civil Appeal Nos. 3797-3799 of 2011 Civil Appeal Nos. 3800-3802 of 2011 Civil Appeal No. 3803 of 2011 Civil Appeal Nos. 3804-3806 of 2011 Civil Appeal Nos. 3807-3809 of 2011 Civil Appeal No. 3810 of 2011 Civil Appeal No. of 2024 (Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19838 of 2010) And Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 1122-1124 of 2023 In Civil Appeal Nos. 3797-3799 of 2011
Decided On : 25-11-2024
Important Points
The court ruled that preferential land allotment policies favoring certain privileged groups violate Article 14 of the Constitution, undermining equality and public interest.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Public Interest Litigation
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Land allotment policy - The High Court quashed GoM Nos. 243 and 244 for classifying MPs, MLAs, AIS officers, Judges, and journalists as a separate class for land allotment at basic rates, violating equality principles. The court emphasized that the policy favored privileged groups at the expense of marginalized citizens, undermining public interest and trust in democratic institutions. (Paras 92-96)
(B) Public Interest Litigation - The court recognized the petitioners as public-spirited individuals and upheld their standing to challenge the land allotment policies. (Paras 23-24)
(C) Judicial Review - The court reiterated that government actions must adhere to principles of fairness and equality, rejecting arbitrary classifications. (Paras 40-44)
Facts of the case:
The case involved challenges to government memoranda regarding land allotments to various privileged groups, which were deemed unconstitutional. (Paras 1-4)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the allotment policies violated Article 14, favoring affluent individuals while neglecting the needs of the marginalized. (Paras 92-96)
Issues: The main issues included the legality of preferential land allotments and the application of equality principles under the Constitution. (Paras 22-24)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the classification of beneficiaries for land allotment was arbitrary and unconstitutional, emphasizing the need for equitable treatment of all citizens. (Paras 78-89)
Result: Appeals allowed; GoM Nos. 243 and 244 quashed.
(B) Public Interest Litigation - The court recognized the petitioners as public-spirited individuals and upheld their standing to challenge the land allotment policies. (Paras 23-24)
(C) Judicial Review - The court reiterated that government actions must adhere to principles of fairness and equality, rejecting arbitrary classifications. (Paras 40-44)
Facts of the case:
The case involved challenges to government memoranda regarding land allotments to various privileged groups, which were deemed unconstitutional. (Paras 1-4)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the allotment policies violated Article 14, favoring affluent individuals while neglecting the needs of the marginalized. (Paras 92-96)
Issues: The main issues included the legality of preferential land allotments and the application of equality principles under the Constitution. (Paras 22-24)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the classification of beneficiaries for land allotment was arbitrary and unconstitutional, emphasizing the need for equitable treatment of all citizens. (Paras 78-89)
Result: Appeals allowed; GoM Nos. 243 and 244 quashed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- property law
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Manoj C. Mishra, AOR Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR Mr. Anurag Tiwary, Adv. Mr. S.S. Prasad, Sr. Adv. Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv. Ms. C. K. Sucharita, AOR Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. K Ramakanth Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Komal Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Astha Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pawan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Adv. Mr. Anuj Shah, Adv. Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, AOR Dr. Am Singhvi Sr Adv, Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dutta, Adv. Ms. Neha Singh, Adv. Ms. Subasri Jaganathan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR Mr. Samarth Krishan Luthra, Adv. Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. S.. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR Ms. Meena K Poulose, Adv. Ms. Promila, AOR Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, AOR Mr. N. Rajaraman, AOR Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR Mr. Narendra Kumar, AOR Mr. S. Thananjayan, AOR Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv. Mr. T. V. Ratnam, AOR Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Bijoy Kumar Jain, AOR Mr. K. V. Vijayakumar, AOR Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Mr. Abinash Kumar Mishra, AOR Ms. C. K. Sucharita, AOR Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Adv. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv. Mr. Karn, Adv. Mr. Umesh Chandra Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dutta, Adv. Ms. Neha Singh, Adv. Ms. Subasri Jaganathan, Adv. Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pawan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Adv. Mr. Anuj Shah, Adv. Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, AOR Ms. Praseena Elizabeth Joseph, AOR Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Ms. Ayush Bansal, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Dora, Adv. Mr. Aakash Thakur, Adv. Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, AOR Mr. Rahul Jajoo, Adv. Ms. Megha Shaw, Adv. Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR Mr. R. Ravi, Adv. Mr. Manish Dua, Adv. Mr. Somanatha Padhan, AOR Mr. Swetab Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rushab Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Ms. Anu Gupta, AOR Mr. S.Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR Mr. Ragenth Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kaushitaki Sharma, Adv. Mr. Yogesh Raavi Venkata, Adv. Ms. Twinkle Rathi, Adv. Mr. Keshav Rao Jadhav, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Manoj C. Mishra, AOR Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR Mr. Anurag Tiwary, Adv. Mr. S.S. Prasad, Sr. Adv. Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv. Ms. C. K. Sucharita, AOR Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. K Ramakanth Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Komal Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Astha Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pawan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Adv. Mr. Anuj Shah, Adv. Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, AOR Dr. Am Singhvi Sr Adv, Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dutta, Adv. Ms. Neha Singh, Adv. Ms. Subasri Jaganathan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR Mr. Samarth Krishan Luthra, Adv. Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. S.. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR Ms. Meena K Poulose, Adv. Ms. Promila, AOR Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, AOR Mr. N. Rajaraman, AOR Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR Mr. Narendra Kumar, AOR Mr. S. Thananjayan, AOR Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv. Mr. T. V. Ratnam, AOR Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Bijoy Kumar Jain, AOR Mr. K. V. Vijayakumar, AOR Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Mr. Abinash Kumar Mishra, AOR Ms. C. K. Sucharita, AOR Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Adv. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv. Mr. Karn, Adv. Mr. Umesh Chandra Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dutta, Adv. Ms. Neha Singh, Adv. Ms. Subasri Jaganathan, Adv. Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pawan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Adv. Mr. Anuj Shah, Adv. Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, AOR Ms. Praseena Elizabeth Joseph, AOR Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Ms. Ayush Bansal, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Dora, Adv. Mr. Aakash Thakur, Adv. Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, AOR Mr. Rahul Jajoo, Adv. Ms. Megha Shaw, Adv. Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR Mr. R. Ravi, Adv. Mr. Manish Dua, Adv. Mr. Somanatha Padhan, AOR Mr. Swetab Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rushab Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Ms. Anu Gupta, AOR Mr. S.Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR Mr. Ragenth Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kaushitaki Sharma, Adv. Mr. Yogesh Raavi Venkata, Adv. Ms. Twinkle Rathi, Adv. Mr. Keshav Rao Jadhav, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Preferential allotment to government servants and legislators as a separate class with rational nexus — Versus claim of arbitrariness and violation of equality. (Para 27 , 28 )
3. Distribution of state largesse must be non-arbitrary — Preferential allotment to affluent classes at discounted rates violates substantive equality and promotes socio-economic exclusion. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 )
4. State distribution of public resources must satisfy the test of substantive equality — Arbitrary preference for privileged classes over marginalized groups violates Article 14. (Para 46 , 56 , 67 , 74 , 87 )
5. Allotment policies and consequential memoranda quashed — Land restored to government — Restitution of payments to allottees ordered. (Para 92 , 94 , 95 )
6. Does the principle of constructive res judicata bar subsequent challenges to government policies in public interest litigations?
Not necessarily. In PILs involving grave public importance, technical procedural defenses like constructive res judicata are limited. If the previous litigation focused on specific allotments rather than the constitutional validity of the underlying policy, a separate cause of action exists. (Para 34 , 35 , 37 , 38 , 39 )
7. Can the government exercise absolute discretion in distributing public resources or granting largesse?
No. The government is not a private individual. When dealing with the public or granting largesse, its actions must be fair, non-discriminatory, and conform to rational, non-arbitrary standards as mandated by Article 14. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 )
8. What is the difference between the reasonable classification test and the substantive equality test under Article 14?
The reasonable classification test focuses on intelligible differentia and rational nexus. Substantive equality goes further, examining the actual impact of a policy to ensure it does not perpetuate prejudice, stereotypes, or socio-economic exclusion of disadvantaged groups. (Para 48 , 52 , 57 , 59 , 62 , 67 , 68 )
9. At what price should the state typically dispose of public property?
The state is generally obligated to sell public property at the best market price to maximize revenue for public welfare, unless the disposal serves a constitutionally recognized public purpose, such as achieving goals in Part IV of the Constitution. (Para 84 )
JUDGMENT :
SANJIV KHANNA, CJI.
Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19838 of 2010.
2. This common judgment decides the cross appeals which impugn the judgment dated 05.01.2010, of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition Nos. 7956, 7997, and 23682 of 2008. These Writ Petitions challenged the allotment of land parcels, vide several State Government Memoranda1 [For short, “GoM.”], within the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation limits. The land was allocated to Cooperative Societies composed of members of various groups, including Members of Parliament2 [For short, “MP.”], Members of both houses of the State Legislature3 [For short, “MLA.”], officers of All India Services4 [For short, “AIS.”], Judges of the Supreme Court and High Court5 [We note that while the Judges of the Supreme Court and High Court have withdrawn their claims and are not seeking allotment, we have addressed their category for the purpose of tackling the legal issue arising out of allotment made under GoM No. 243], State Government employees, defence personnel, journalists and individuals from weaker sections of society.
3. The High Court, in the impugned judgment, has partly allowed the Writ Petitions, quashing the GoMs that laid down the allotment policy and facilitate the allotments to the Cooperative Societies. It held that the parcels of land allotted to the respondents were to be restored to the Government, and that fresh allotments can only be made following the issuance of appropriate GoMs consistent with the judgment. The High Court further directed that before such GoMs are issued, the State shall call for details of members who meet the eligibility criteria; ensure they sign affidavits declaring their eligibility; and publish this information on its website for public access. Any false declaration will result in cancellation of the allotment, and initiation of civil and criminal proceedings.
4. While the Cooperative Societies, their members, and the State of Telangana6 [Refer to the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by this Court, giving directions for amendment in the Cause Title] have preferred appeals contesting these directions, Mr. Keshav Rao Jadhav, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 23682/2008, has filed a cross-appeal. Mr. Keshav Rao Jadhav prays that preferential allotment of land – particularly at basic rates – to MLAs, MPs, journalists, officers of the AIS and Judges, is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, as it violates the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
FACTS OF THE CASE
5. On 28.02.2005, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued three GoMs – Nos. 242, 243 and 244. GoM No. 242 established a comprehensive policy for managing land resources and housing in urban and semi-urban areas. GoM No. 243 outlined categories of individuals eligible for land allotment, while GoM No. 244 provided guidelines for this process.
6. GoM No. 242 emphasized the urgent need for prudent management of land resources in urban and semi-urban areas due to rising urbanization and increasing demand for housing. Due to growing urbanisation, demand for land for housing purposes has surged. It highlighted the challenges faced by the working middle class, as private developers often artificially inflate land prices, making it difficult for them to secure plots. Recognizing that providing shelter is a top priority for the State, the Government had previously formulated a housing scheme for the poor. However, there was no fixed policy catering to “other deserving sections” of the society. Consequently, the Government decided that a comprehensive policy was necessary, leading to the issuance of GoM No. 242. Key stipulations of the GoM include:
• Creation of a land bank, source-pooled for allotment to various housing Cooperative Societies and other target groups.
• The source of the land bank would consist of land located in and around 120 municipalities with clear titles.
• The land would
