SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 1181

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Proposed Vaibhav Cooperative Housing Society Limited – Appellant
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5193 of 2024 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 17209 of 2012)
Decided On : 12-12-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Prashant Shrikant Kenjale, AOR Ms. S. Soorya Gayathry, Adv. Mr. Harish Nirbhavana, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjay Kharde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Savadikar, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Allotment of land to Cooperative Housing Society – Land is a precious material resource of community and least which is required from State is transparency in its distribution.

Headnote:

Constitution of India – Article 19 – Allotment of land to Cooperative Housing Society – Nepotism and favouritism in allotment of land to Medinova Regal Cooperative Housing Society – Land is a precious material resource of community and least which is required from State is transparency in its distribution – There has been complete arbitrariness in allotment in favour of MRCHS – Not only were MRCHS’ proposed members found ineligible, but society was allowed to change its members frequently, starting from point when it accepted Letter of Intent in its favour – Non-disclosure of reasons shows that such allotment is arbitrary – Order of High Court set aside and Letter of Allotment in favour of MRCHS quashed. [Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Land) Rules, Maharashtra, 1971 – Rule 17] (Paras 8,11,12 and 13)

Facts of the case:

Appellant has filed this appeal challenging judgement dated 24.02.2012, whereby a Division Bench of High Court of Bombay has dismissed appellant’s writ petition and declined to interfere in allotment of land by Respondent-State to Medinova Regal Cooperative Housing Society.

Findings of Court:

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

Result : Civil Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.

1. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging judgement dated 24.02.2012, whereby a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay has dismissed the appellant’s writ petition and declined to interfere in the allotment of land by the Respondent­State to Medinova Regal Co­operative Housing Society (hereinafter for brevity “MRCHS” or “Respondent No. 5”)

2. MRCHS is a proposed housing society and had applied, through its Chief Promoter Dr. C.N. Shenoy, to the Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra for allotment of a plot bearing CTS No.629 Part D, E, F at Bandra on 11.10.2000. It was mentioned in their application that the members of applicant society work in Tata Memorial Centre, a leading hospital and research institute for cancer, and these members do not own any house, despite living in Maharashtra for the last twenty years or so. Further, they had said that they have been residing at places which are at quite a distance from their workplace and thus find travelling difficult and time consuming, although as doctors they have to reach their hospital in time in order to respond to emergencies. On these grounds a request was made for allotment of land.

Three years later on 16.01.2003, the Revenue & Forest Department issued a Letter of Intent (“LoI”) in favour of MRCHS for sanction of one plot of land, out of two plots of equal area which will be created after subdividing the plot bearing C.S. No. 341 C.T.S. No. 608/1 and 608/2 at Bandra (“subject plot”). It is important to note that this plot is different from the plot for which the MRCHS had applied.

3. Around a month later, one Mr. Dilip D. Gijare informed the Collector that he has now become the Chief Promoter of MRCHS. Further, out of the 11 persons shown as members of MRCHS at the time of issuance of the Letter of Intent, 5 are ineligible and have been substituted by inclusion of 8 new persons. Thus, the composition of the proposed MRCHS changes for the first time.

Meanwhile on 29.08.2003, the present appellant also applies for allotment of the subject plot in its favour.

Subsequently, the Joint Secy., Forest & Revenue Department prepares an Office Note dated 14.07.2004 detailing the Collector’s findings that out of the original 15 members, 2 have not submitted their details, 5 have resigned and 4 are ineligible due to income limit. Further, out of the newly included 8 members, 5 are ineligible due to income limit as well. Thus, the Joint. Secy. opined that the LoI in MRCHS’ favour should be cancelled. The Chief Minister remarked “please resubmit the file with the latest position”.

4. Thereafter, the Joint Secy. again recommended cancellation of the LoI vide Office Note dated 21.09.2004. It was noted that even the new Chief Promoter of MRCHS, Mr. Dilip D. Gijare, has submitted his resignation and of the original 11 members, who were shown as members of MRCHS at time of issuance of LoI, none are eligible for membership. Thus, it was observed that the main object of sanctioning the plot in favour of MRCHS is not getting satisfied. This is what was said:

“that out of 11 members alongwith Letter of Intent provided to [MRCHS], 5 members have given resignations and details two members have not been received. Remaining 4 members are not eligible because of income limit and out of 9 members who have been admitted fresh, 4 members from Tata Memorial Centre and 1 Private Surgeon and thus total 5 members are also not eligible as per income limit…Similarly resignation of Dr. Dilip D. Gihare, newly appointed Chief Promoter of the society has been submitted.

It is being observed from the details submitted in this case by the Collector that total 5 members out of total 11 members of the list enclosed with [LoI] of Intent dated 16/1/2003 provided to [MRCHS] have given resignation and 2 members have not submitted their details…In this manner out of total 11 members whose names have been mentioned in list alongwith Letter of Intent of the Government dated 16/1/2003 p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top