Bombay High Court
Bal Kalyani
Versus
State of Maharashtra
Decided On:

Headnote:Sections 276 and 295 - Land Disposal Rules, Rules 27. 28 and 37 Constitution of India, Article 226-Mala fides-Allotment of land to cooperative society of I. A. S. Officers-Isolated plot of land-Not enough that there is isolated plot, but there must be isolated plot available for disposal illegitimate influence by I. A. S. Officers and non-application of mend by ministers.

       Held, mala fide allotment liable to be quashed.

       The Revenue Secretary (although only of he component of Relief and Rehabilitation of that Department), was the promoter and one of the promoters and one of the prominent members of the society which was then in formation, the applicant for allotment. It was his own subordinates and colleagues (the Collector and then Joint Secretary being some among them) who were to scrutinize and process those papers at the Government level. It was the Collector working under him who had to offer comments or furnish information. Theoretically there is nothing wrong ill a society composed of Government Officers or the Government Officers themselves, making such an application nor is there anything per se improper in the Government considering the same, and passing all (under thereon, on a proper consideration of all aspects. However, the question whether there had been a proper consideration of all aspects will have to be examined with greater importance than in normal circumstances.

       It is obvious that the questions-the right questions-had not even been posed, let alone considered or decided. The basic questions such as whether the plants were isolated ones, whether there was publication, and if not why not, whether there had been proper and satisfactory answers from the P.W.D. Department, whether there was the mandated prior consultation with the finance Department - all wore missed, by the Minister, Kanga (who had by then became the Revenue Secretary) signally failed in bringing to focus these salient aspects before the political masters, who could not, for obvious reasons, delve deep into the files and carryon their heads a library of the relevant legal aspects. The Civil Servants involved in this case threw to the four winds their basic duties as Civil servants and led the political administration up the garden path, not disclosing the areas strown with thickets and concealing the pit-holes.

       The fragile excuse put forward for this assumption is that prices of land would be static with the implementation of Urban Land Ceiling Act. The ridiculous character of that assumption, is too patent to call for comment. The phenomenal rise in price of land, in the city of Bombay, is so shockingly felt that even judicial notice could be taken about it. The Government could not arbitrarily reduce to a mocking pittance what it is entitled to collect by way of reasonable rent, unless, there is a larger social purpose (such as rehabilitating the weakest sections, who have only their scanty apparel and starving stomachs). Allotment of land to persons relatively well placed in life does not satisfy the element of a rational and sound policy of promotion of larger social justice. The state is deprived of its legitimate due unreasonably and irrationally. The self-denying decision of the State Government is due to the illegitimate intervention of the bureaucrats who have their fingers in the pie.

       When the Nation is facing a crisis in values those who were entrusted in the solemn duty of preserving the State property and ensuring compliance with the legal provisions chose to throw to the winds all basic principles. A Revenue Secretary who should have functioned as a watch-dog in keeping vigil over the assets of the State, engineered a decision •of allotment of a valuable plot of Government land in favour of a group including himself. The Court cannot, consistent with its constitutional obligation permit such actions to go unnoticed or unchecked. Court has no hestitation, in the circumstances, to quash allotment of the land for the various reasons indicated above.

       Article 226.

       See Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, Sections 276, 295.

       For Citation : AIR 1993 Bom 10 at pp. 24, 25, 26 and 3 (Bom) : 1993 (1) Bank CLR 21