The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed the 2008 allotment of a premium plot of land in Mumbai’s Bandra to a cooperative housing society, terming the process riddled with “nepotism and favouritism” and criticising the role of then chief ministers for repeatedly intervening to ensure the society received the land despite glaring violations of rules and norms.
A bench of justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed gross breach of norms and transparency in the allotment process, as it expressed a grim view of role played by former CMs, Sushilkumar Shinde and Vilasrao Deshmukh, in pushing the allotment through between 2004 and 2008 despite recommendations by top officers against the allotment.
“Land is a precious material resource of the community, and therefore, the least which is required from the State is transparency in its distribution,” asserted the bench, emphasising the need for transparency and fairness in the distribution of public resources.
The Medinova Regal Cooperative Housing Society (MRCHS), a proposed housing society, had initially applied in 2000 for a plot, citing the need to provide housing to doctors working at Tata Memorial Hospital. The application argued that the members of the society, all doctors at the hospital, did not own homes in Mumbai and faced challenges in commuting long distances to their workplace, particularly during emergencies. However, the court noted that by the time the land was finally allotted in 2008, not a single member of the society was a doctor or employee of Tata Memorial Hospital.
“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 bench held.
{{/usCountry}}“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 bench held.
{{/usCountry}}The judgment paints a damning picture of how the allotment was orchestrated through repeated interventions by then CM. Initially, the revenue and forest department, in 2004, recommended the cancellation of the letter of intent (LoI) issued to MRCHS, citing multiple irregularities, including ineligibility of members. However, the CM directed that the file be resubmitted, ostensibly to reconsider the society’s case.
Subsequent reviews of the society’s eligibility revealed even more glaring deficiencies. In 2005, it was found that out of 29 members, only eight were prima facie eligible. Additionally, the mandatory inclusion of 20% of members from backward classes had not been fulfilled. Despite these findings, the CM once again intervened, directing that “last opportunity be provided to the society” and instructing the collector to expedite the process.
“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,” the court noted.
It added that the society’s membership had changed thrice during the application process, raising serious questions about its legitimacy. “The matter kept lingering on one pretext or the other, and thereafter, as late as in 2006, one last opportunity was given to MRCHS. After eight 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 bench further observed that the entire process violated fundamental principles of fairness and accountability. “If land is allotted under the discretionary powers of the government, it is necessary to give reasons in writing as to why such allotment is made in favour of a particular society. Unfortunately, all this is completely missing in the present case...there has been a complete arbitrariness in the allotment in favour of MRCHS,” ruled the bench.
The judgment came on an appeal filed by another cooperative housing society, assailing the allotment of land to MRCHS.