PROPOSED VAIBHAV COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITEDversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

                [2024] 12 S.C.R. 732 : 2024 INSC 971

  Proposed Vaibhav Cooperative Housing Society Limited
                           v.
               State of Maharashtra & Ors.
                      (Civil Appeal No. 5193 of 2024)
                             12 December 2024
     [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether the allotment of the plot in favour of Medinova Regal
       Co-operative Housing Society (MRHS) was proper or violative of
       the procedure as well as eligibility criteria.

                                  Headnotes†
       Allotment of land – Co-operative Housing Society – The
       Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the appellant’s
       writ petition and declined to interfere in the allotment of land
       by the Respondent-State to MRHS:
       Held: The entire history of how the plot came to be allotted to
       MRCHS shows nepotism and favouritism for a society which was
       not even eligible in the first place for this allotment – 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 composition of this society has also now
       completely changed from its original composition – If land is
       allotted under the discretionary powers of the government, then
       it is necessary to give reasons in writing as to why such allotment
       is made in favour of a particular society – Since there has to be
       transparency in matters of allotment of land by the government,
       adherence to the rules and regulations becomes important in
       the cases of allotment, but unfortunately, all this is completely
       missing in the present case where allotment was made in favour
       of MRCHS in total violation of the prescribed procedure – Also,
       MRCHS had applied for a different plot than what they were
       ultimately allotted – Nothing has been brought to notice of this


* Author
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                             733

      Proposed Vaibhav Cooperative Housing Society Limited v.
                    State of Maharashtra & Ors.

     Court which would even remotely indicate that the plot actually
     allotted to MRCHS was ever sought by them – This by itself
     vitiates the entire allotment – Similarly, a perusal of the Letter of
     Intent as well as the Letter of Allotment does not disclose any
     reasons why MRCHS was allotted land under the discretionary
     quota – Non-disclosure of reasons shows that such an allotment
     is arbitrary – Thus, the allotment of the plot in favour of MRCHS is
     not proper, as it is violative of the procedure as well as eligibility
     criteria. [Paras 6, 7, 8, 12]

                              Case Law Cited
     Angarki Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
     (1997) 9 SCC 713; S.V. Asgaonkar v. MMRDA [2018] 3 SCR 410 :
     (2018) 17 SCC 467 – referred to.

                                 List of Acts
     Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Land) Rules, Maharashtra,
     1971 read with Government Regulations dated 09.07.1999.

                              List of Keywords
     Allotment of land; Co-operative Housing Society; Violation of
     procedure; Change of composition; Discretionary powers of
     Government.

                             Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5193 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 24.02.2012 of the High Court
     of Bombay in WP No. 928 of 2010

                         Appearances for Parties
     Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., Prashant Shrikant Kenjale, Harish
     Nirbhavane, Advs. for the Appellant.
     Sanjay Kharde, Shyam Divan, Sr. Advs., Siddharth Dharmadhikari,
     Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya
     Krishna, Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adarsh Dubey, Sandeep Sudhakar
     Deshmukh, Nishant Sharma, Patil Avi Vilas, Advs. for the
     Respondents.
734                                                          [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  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 Respondent-State to Medinova Regal
       Co-operative 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.
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                         735

      Proposed Vaibhav Cooperative Housing Society Limited v.
                    State of Maharashtra & Ors.

     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 provided to the society, not
          a single member can be considered to be eligible in the
          present circumstances for membership. Similarly earlier 9
          members who have been recommended by the society and
          9 members who have been proposed in connection with
          T.D.R. and names of such total 19 members have not been
          included in the list of Letter of Intent of Government dated
736                                                          [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


            16/1/2003 provided to the society. From these details main
            object of the government of sanctioning plot of land under
            the subject to the society is not getting satisfied. Taking
            this fact into consideration as most of the members of Tata
            Memorial Centre is not being eligible for Membership, letter
            of Intent of the Government dated 16/1/2003 issued… for
            the allotment to [MRCHS] should be cancelled. However,
            submitted for orders.”
       The Chief Minister again intervened and directed scrutiny of the
       second proposal by MRCHS. The composition of the proposed
       MRCHS has changed thrice already, yet they are afforded another
       opportunity by the Chief Minister.
       This time, the Principal Secy. (Revenue) vide Office Note dated
       17.05.2005 recommends cancellation of the LoI. He notes that after
       scrutiny of all 29 members, i.e., original and additional members,
       only 8 of them can be considered prima facie eligible while the
       condition of admitting 20% of MRCHS’ members from the backward
       classes has still not been complied with. The reason that 8 members
       were only prima facie eligible is because they were in the private
       service (not working with Tata Memorial Centre) and could be
       considered only after submission of their income certificate, as
       provided by the Competent Authority.
       On 03.04.2006, the Chief Minister sent the file back with the remarks
       “Last opportunity be provided to the society and concerned Collector
       should complete the action.” This direction sounds more like a
       command given by the Chief Minister.
5.     Once this direction was given by the Chief Minister, things started
       moving smoothly for MRCHS as the Joint Secy. found 13 members
       out of their 29 members to be eligible for granting final membership.
       Consequently, Letter of Allotment was issued in favour of MRCHS
       on 10.04.2008.
6.     The entire history of how the plot came to be allotted to MRCHS
       shows nepotism and favouritism for a society which was not even
       eligible in the first place for this allotment. 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
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                       737

      Proposed Vaibhav Cooperative Housing Society Limited v.
                    State of Maharashtra & Ors.

     and for which the plot was sought to be allotted. The composition
     of this society has also now completely changed from its original
     composition.
     Further, the appellant has taken us through the office noting of
     MRCHS’ file which clearly suggests that the concerned authorities
     were not favourably inclined to allot the plot to MRCHS and the
     matter kept lingering since the year 2000, on one pretext or the other
     and thereafter as late as in 2006 one last opportunity was given to
     MRCHS and after 8 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!
7.   The appellant has also brought to our notice the Land Revenue
     (Disposal of Government Land) Rules, Maharashtra, 1971 (“Rules”)
     read with Government Regulations dated 09.07.1999 (“GR 1999”).
     Rule 27, which would be applicable for allotment in the present case
     is reproduced below:
          27. Grant of land housing schemes: Building plots
          may be granted by the State Government for various
          housing schemes undertaken by any housing board, local
          authority or co-operative housing society constituted under
          any law for the time being in force, in occupancy rights
          under Section 40 on inalienable and impartible tenure
          on payment of such concessional occupancy price as
          the State Government may, from time to time fix, regard
          being had to the nature of the scheme, and in the case
          of a co-operative housing society, to the income of the
          members, thereof, such income being ascertained after
          making such inquiries as the State Government may think
          fit to make in this behalf…
     The relevant Clauses from G.R. 1999 are as follows:
          6. When Chief Promoter of the Proposed Co-operative
          Housing Society submits application, for the Government
          Land, it will necessary to submit information of the land
          which is required for the society alongwith details of land
          viz. City Survey Number, Area, Local Plan in the scale
          of 1 : 4000, Property Card, 7/12 Extract, list of Members
          (alongwith the details of address of employment and
738                                                      [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                      Supreme Court Reports


       residence, monthly income, domiciled at Maharashtra,
       whether members belongs to Backward Class or how) etc.
       11. Only applications are being considered when persons
       from the public get the information that government land
       is available for allotment and submit the same for such
       land and thereafter action is being taken. In view of that
       for want of information need persons should not be left
       out, Government is giving directions that apart from the
       area where only one or two plot of lands are separately
       available for allotment, for other area Collector should give
       press note in the local newspaper and provide information
       to the public that such plot of lands are available and
       applications should be invited from the public for the
       disposal of land within the period which will be specified
       in such press note. So that persons who are interested
       can establish societies and can submit the application
       for allotment of land within such specified period. After
       scrutinizing applications which will be received as per
       above, proposals should be submitted for the approval
       of the Government Authority.
       12. As per above provisions, if there are more than two
       plots of land in any layout and when applications from
       any one or more of the Co-Operative Housing Societies
       for the available plot of land will be received, even though
       there is provision to invite applications from the public after
       giving press note in the Newspaper, as no touchstones or
       guidelines have been provided in it as to how selection
       of those societies to whom land is to be allotted out of
       the applications received in this manner and hence now
       Government is giving directions that when allotment of
       plot of land will be made after giving advertisement in
       the Newspaper, same should be made as per guidelines
       detailed hereunder:-
       …
       (4) If eligible Applicants of that respective groups are
       more than plot of lands available for that group of the
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                        739

      Proposed Vaibhav Cooperative Housing Society Limited v.
                    State of Maharashtra & Ors.

          Co-operative Housing Societies, it should be decided
          to which societies plots should be allotted after making
          public draw.
          …
          (8). As provided at Item No. 8 of Sr. No. 2 and 13. Number
          Five above, when allotment of plots will be made as per
          discretionary powers of the Government, at that time it will
          be necessary to state reasons for the allotment of those
          plot of lands to the specific societies in writing.
     These are the rules and regulations laying down a detail procedure
     for allotment of land to any Proposed Co-Operative Housing Society.
     As per these regulations, the Chief Promotor of the Proposed Society
     is required to submit specific details, like Survey Number, Area,
     local plan etc., of the land which is sought to be allotted. Clause
     11 provides the mechanism by which the public can get to know
     that government land is available for allotment and can apply for
     the same. Also, if land is allotted under the discretionary powers
     of the government, then it is necessary to give reasons in writing
     as to why such allotment is made in favour of a particular society.
     Since there has to be transparency in matters of allotment of land
     by the government, adherence to the above rules and regulations
     becomes important in the cases of allotment, but unfortunately,
     all this is completely missing in the present case where allotment
     was made in favour of MRCHS in total violation of the prescribed
     procedure.
     The State of Maharashtra issued another G.R. dated 25.05.2007
     which revises the comprehensive orders for grant of land. Clause 6, 11
     and 12 of GR 1999 becomes Clause 7, 12 and 13 respectively
     with minimal to no amendments. Major changes were made on the
     maximum income requirement, allowing people with higher incomes
     to become members of such societies who were seeking grants of
     land from the State.
8.   As discussed above, Clause 6 of the G.R. dated 09.07.1999 provides
     that the Chief Promoter of the Society will submit details of the land.
     However, it must be noted that MRCHS had applied for a different plot
     than what they were ultimately allotted. Nothing has been brought to
     our notice which would even remotely indicate that the plot actually
740                                                         [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       allotted to MRCHS was ever sought by them. This by itself vitiates
       the entire allotment.
       Similarly, a perusal of the Letter of Intent as well as the Letter of
       Allotment does not disclose any reasons why MRCHS was allotted
       land under the discretionary quota, as provided for under Clause
       12(8) GR 1999, where it specifically provides that reasons have to
       be disclosed as to why discretion is being exercised. Non-disclosure
       of reasons shows that such an allotment is arbitrary.
9.     Further, the Letter of Intent provides that “complete information and
       Affidavits of all members of the society as stated above should be
       submitted by the society within 2 months from the receipt of this
       letter with the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, failing which this
       Letter of Intent will stand automatically cancelled”.
       MRCHS’ proposed members in their initial application were
       subsequently changed thrice, in order to somehow meet the eligibility
       criteria. When MRCHS replied to the Letter of Intent on 28.02.2003,
       the proposed society had removed 5 of its members out of the list
       of eleven earlier submitted alongwith their application. These names
       were deleted on the grounds that they were ineligible. Had this been
       the case, why were they included in the first place? The only purpose
       therefore why these names were shown were because they were
       all doctors of Tata Memorial Centre on whose names ostensibly
       MRCHS was trying to get the allotment made.
       It was even noted by the Revenue & Forest Department, Govt. of
       Maharashtra that the main object behind sanctioning of the plot of
       land to MRHCS i.e., to provide housing to the doctors working at
       Tata Memorial Hospital in close proximity to their workplace can no
       longer be achieved, due to changes in the composition of the society.
10. In Angarki Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
    (1997) 9 SCC 713 the application of Clause 11 of the G.R. dated
    12.05.1983 was discussed. The erstwhile Clause 11 had slight
    differences but the purpose remained the same, i.e., for disposal
    of one or two plots. The following was noted by this Court whilst
    upholding allotment to be arbitrary:
            “According to the learned counsel the plot may not be
            in isolation but what is permitted under the Resolution
            is the disposal of the plot in isolation. In other words
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                      741

      Proposed Vaibhav Cooperative Housing Society Limited v.
                    State of Maharashtra & Ors.

          the contention is that it is not the situation of the plot
          but the procedure of disposal of the plot which can be
          in isolation of the operative part of clause 11 of the
          Resolution… Only when there is an isolated plot, the
          question of following any isolated procedure in disposing
          of the plot would arise. In the present case, there was
          neither an isolated plot nor was any isolated procedure
          followed. What was done was wholly arbitrary and as
          such cannot be sustained.”
     In this case as well, no documents have been placed on record by
     MRCHS or the State to show that when the Letter of Intent was
     issued in their favour, more plots were unavailable in the layout as
     prepared under Rule 24. Whereas, the appellants have brought on
     record Letter dated 15.11.2000 issued by the Collector noting that
     more plots were indeed available with the government for disposal.
     Further still, the plot that was allotted to MRCHS was divided into
     two from one large single plot. Thus, at the time of issuance of the
     Letter of Intent, there were two or more than two plots available.
     Further, MRCHS had applied for allotment of a different plot which
     is also at Village Bandra and part of the same Survey Number and
     hence at the very least there were more than two plots available for
     allotment in this layout when the Letter of Intent came to be issued
     in favour of MRCHS.
     The concerned plots instead should have been allotted by the
     Collector, under Clause 12(4) of GR 1999, by way of a public draw
     after inviting applications through Press Notes, in order to bring
     transparency in the process of allotment.
11. In S.V. Asgaonkar v. MMRDA (2018) 17 SCC 467 this Court
    upheld the dismissal of the appellant society’s writ petition against
    the finding of ineligibility of its members. It was observed that “the
    Society was conscious of the fact that eligibility of members has
    to be seen as on 11-12-2003 that is the date on which letter of
    intent was issued in pursuance of allotment. The Society having
    accepted the aforesaid clause of eligibility and accepted the offer
    of allotment as given by the Authority, we fail to see that how
    the eligibility as on 11-12-2003 be permitted to be questioned”.
    However, in our case, not only were MRCHS’ proposed members
    found ineligible, but the society was allowed to change its members
742                                                      [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       frequently, starting from the point when it accepted the Letter of
       Intent in its favour.
12. Land is a precious material resource of the community and therefore
    the least which is required from the State is transparency in its
    distribution. In our opinion, therefore there has been a complete
    arbitrariness in the allotment in favour of MRCHS. 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 the authorities, but the allotment
    of the plot in favour of MRCHS is not proper, as it is violative of the
    procedure as well as eligibility criteria.
13. For the reasons stated above, we allow this civil appeal and set
    aside the order of the High Court of Bombay. Accordingly, the Letter
    of Allotment dated 10.04.2008 in favour of MRCHS stands quashed.
14. Interim order(s) shall stand vacated.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan