New Delhi: Preferential land allotment to housing societies for “select privileged groups” such as lawmakers, civil servants, judges, defence personnel and journalists promotes inequality, leading to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court observed Monday.
A bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta said that an exclusive policy catering to the affluent sections of the society—framed by any government—would amount to the abuse of power. Such a policy, the bench said, disapproves and rejects the equal right to allotment of common citizens and the socio-economically disadvantaged.
The criticism of such a policy by the court came as it quashed the Andhra Pradesh Government Memoranda of 2005 classifying MPs, MLAs, officers of the All India Service/state government, judges of the constitutional courts, and journalists as a separate class for allotment of land at a basic rate. The policy entailed allotment of land in Hyderabad to cooperative societies formed by people from the groups concerned.
Besides quashing the policy, the court set aside subsequent orders issued in 2008 to allot land within the limits of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to the groups concerned while declaring such orders as bad in law.
The court’s decision came on appeals filed by the Telangana government and the cooperative societies and their members against a 2010 Telangana High Court judgment, which too disapproved of the land allotment policy.
“The allocation of land at basic rates to select privileged groups reflects a ‘capricious’ and ‘irrational’ approach. This is a classic case of executive action steeped in arbitrariness but clothed in the guise of legitimacy by stating that the ostensible purpose of the policy was to allot land to ‘deserving sections of society’,” the bench said.
Authored by CJI Khanna, the Supreme Court judgment criticised the land allotment policy for undermining “solidarity and fraternity”. According to the court, the policy reinforced societal hierarchies instead of dismantling them.
‘Policy advances preferential treatment’
“Land is a finite and highly valuable resource, particularly in densely populated urban areas, where access to land for housing and economic activities is increasingly scarce. When the government allocates land at discounted rates to the privileged few, it engenders a system of inequality, conferring upon them a material advantage that remains inaccessible to the common citizen,” the bench observed.
Saying the policy would advance preferential treatment, the bench added it also would send the message that “certain individuals” are entitled to more, not due to the necessities of their public office or the public good, but simply because of their status.
Such practices, the bench added, foster disillusionment, besides resentment, among ordinary citizens. According to the bench, such practices, perceived as corrupt or unjust, tended to erode trust in democratic institutions.
The bench also took serious note of categorising accredited journalists as a separate class for preferential treatment. As the fourth pillar of democracy, journalists act as checks and balances on the arbitrary exercise of the state’s power. “However, distribution of such extraordinary state benefits renders nugatory the very optics of healthy checks and balances within our democratic system,” the bench said.
As for the allotment policy, the bench held it suffered from a malaise of unreasonableness and arbitrariness. “It reeks of colourable exercise of power whereby the policymakers are bestowing valuable resources to their peers and ilk, triggering a cycle of illegal distribution of state resources,” the bench added.
Resources, the SC said, are vested in the state, which holds it in trust for its citizens, with the resources meant for larger public and social interests. Therefore, the three organs of the state—legislature, executive and judiciary—are de-facto trustees and agents or repositories that function and govern for the benefit of citizen beneficiaries of such resources.
The court said the state has the discretion and duty under the Constitution to distribute resources but only for the marginalised or other imminent and deserving personalities who contribute to the nation’s progress through excellence in sports or other public activities. However, the court added that even compensation for such persons should be through reasonable and non-arbitrary distribution of state largesse.
Any policy in that direction, it said, should be within the confines of Article 14, and the classification must satisfy the principles of substantive equality. “The state cannot exercise discretion to benefit a select few elites disproportionately, especially ones who are already enjoying pre-existing benefits and advantages,” the court said.
Also Read: 500 witnesses, over 2,000 accused. Senthil Balaji cash-for-jobs trial may take ‘150 yrs’
In cooperative societies, members entitled to a refund
Declaring that the Andhra Pradesh Government Memoranda of 2005 did not meet the equality and fairness standards prescribed by the Constitution, the bench opined that judges of the Supreme Court and high court, MPs, MLAs, government offices, and journalists, among others, cannot be given preference over others and allotted land at a discounted value.
“The policy differentiates and bestows largesse to an advantaged section/group by resorting to discrimination and denial. It bars more deserving, as well as those similarly situated, from access to the land at the same price,” the bench held, adding that the policy promoted socioeconomic exclusion since it favoured a small and privileged section/group.
While cancelling the allotment, the court said the members of the cooperative societies would be entitled to a refund of the entire amount they deposited. The refund amount would also include a refund of the stamp duty and registration fee they paid, along with the interest, leaving it to the Telangana government to quantify the interest rate. The court also said that the interest rate should not exceed the Reserve Bank of India’s rate of interest as applicable from time to time.
All lease deeds executed by the Telangana government under the policy stand cancelled, the SC declared. In case cooperative societies and members have already paid development charges or expenses, that too shall be refunded along with interest.
The bench left it to the state’s discretion to utilise the land as it wanted in the future.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)
Also Read: Amrapali vs Unitech, how differing approaches of 2 SC benches have affected delayed housing projects