IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of transparency and adherence to established procedures in public land allotments to uphold constitutional rights.

JUDGMENT :

(M.S. Sonak J.) :

1. Heard Mr Avinash Jalisatgi with Ms Divya Wadekar for the petitioners, Mr Manish Upadhye, AGP for the State of Maharashtra and Mr P.G. Lad along with Ms Sayli Apte and Ms Shreya Shah for the respondent - MHADA (respondents 2 to 4). The 5th respondent was duly served. Mr Pandey had even waived service for the 5th respondent after this petition was admitted on 9th March 2004.

2. The dispute in this petition is about the allotment of a plot of land bearing City Survey No. 240 (Part) and Survey No. 25 (Part) situated Opp. Building No. 10, Old Maharashtra Grihanirman Vasahat, Gorai Nagar, Borivali (West), Mumbai - 400 091 ad- measuring about 1046.25 sq. mtrs. (“subject plot”) by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents- Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (“MHADA”), based allegedly on directives of the State Government issued under Regulation 16 of the Maharashtra Housing Area Development (Disposal of Land) Regulations (“1982 Regulations”).

3. On 20 March 2003, the Division Bench of this Court comprised H.L. Gokhale and Smt. Ranjana Desai, JJ., directed parties to maintain the status quo. This order dated 20 March 2003 reads as follows:-

“1. Place the petition for admission on 07th April 2003.

2. The dispute is about an open plot of land which has been allotted to Respondent No.5. The Petitioner is claiming that very plot. Presently the plot is vacant and open, except that, a board displaying the name of Respondent No.5 has been put up on this particular plot. All parties will maintain status quo with respect to this plot pending admission. No construction of any sort including fencing will be carried out in this plot until further orders.

3. Authenticated copy of this order be made available to the parties.”

4. On 11 June 2003, the respondents were directed to file affidavits in reply at least a week before the returnable date. The State Government filed two affidavits dated 10 July 2003 and 10 December 2003. The division bench comprising R.M. Lodha and Anoop V. Mohata, JJ., upon perusing the State Government’s affidavits, made the following order on 10 February 2004:-

“Though on behalf of the State Government, two affidavits have been filed, one on 10.7.2003 and the other on 10.12.2003, we find that both the affidavits do not answer the vital questions as to the criterion applied for consideration of the merits of the three claimants, namely, Gorai Nagar Maharashtra Grihanirman Vasahat Sanghatana (Petitioner herein), Ayyappa Seva Samiti (Respondent No.5 herein) and Berozgar Sai Seva Cooperative Society Limited and on what basis the claim of Respondent No.5 was found meritorius. Mr.Mattos, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays for time to file a comprehensive affidavit of a responsible officer on behalf of the State Government justifying the allotment of the subject plot to the Respondent No.5.

2. S.O. 9.3.2004.

3. Parties may be provided an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Associate on payment of usual copying charges.”

5. Despite the request of the learned AGP for granting time “to file a comprehensive affidavit of responsible officer on behalf of the state government justifying the allotment of subject plot to respondent No. 5,” an affidavit of only three paragraphs dated 09 March 2004 was filed by Shri Rajendra Maruti Bengle, Under Secretary, Housing Department, Government of Maharashtra, who had filed earlier two affidavits dated 10 July 2003 and 10 December 2003. The 1st and 3rd paragraphs of this affidavit are formal and the so-called justification for allotment of the plot to the 5th respondent is set out in paragraph 2. This could hardly be called a ‘comprehensive affidavit of a responsible officer on behalf of the State Government justifying the allotment of said plot to the 5th respondent’.

6. Thereafter, on 09 March 2004, this petition was admitted, and an ad-interim relief order dated 20 March 2003 was directed to remain in operation until the final disposal of