In a landmark judgment with profound implications for governance and public resource management, the Supreme Court of India has struck down preferential land allotments made to select elites in Telangana. The bench, comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol, found the allotments to be arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of the constitutional principle of equality before the law under Article 14.
The Court’s decision underscores the need for transparent and equitable distribution of public resources, emphasizing that the government must act as a trustee of public assets rather than catering to privileged groups.
The Background of the Case
The case originated from a policy implemented by the Andhra Pradesh government in 2005 through Government Orders (GOs) 242, 243, and 244, later amended by GOs in 2008. The orders permitted the allotment of land within Greater Hyderabad to cooperative housing societies at concessional rates. The beneficiaries included Members of Parliament (MPs), Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs), Supreme Court and High Court judges, journalists, bureaucrats, and other elites.
The rationale behind the policy was ostensibly to provide affordable housing for deserving groups. However, the implementation revealed glaring irregularities, including allotments to affluent individuals who already owned property and had no pressing need for housing. Public interest litigations (PILs) filed by activists, including Dr. Rao V.B.J. Chelikani and the group Campaign for Housing and Tenural Rights (CHATRI), challenged these allotments as unconstitutional and contrary to public interest.
Earlier, in 2007, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had quashed similar land allocations under GO 522, citing violations of public trust and discriminatory practices. However, the government issued fresh GOs in 2008 to revive the allotments, leading to the present legal battle.
Key Legal Issues Raised
The case posed several significant questions for judicial review:
1. Constitutional Violation: Whether the preferential allotments violated the right to equality under Article 14 by creating undue advantages for privileged groups.
2. Misuse of Public Resources: Whether the government, as a trustee of public land, could allocate such resources at concessional rates without ensuring a legitimate public purpose.
3. Constructive Res Judicata: Whether the doctrine barred fresh challenges to the GOs, given the earlier High Court ruling on similar issues.
4. Transparency and Accountability: Whether the land allocation process adhered to the principles of transparency and fairness in governance.
Observations by the Supreme Court
Delivering the judgment, the bench led by Justice C.T. Ravikumar noted that the state had failed to justify why public land, valued at market rates, was being offered at concessional prices to affluent individuals. The Court stressed that such practices undermined the principles of fairness and equality enshrined in the Constitution.
The Court observed:
“Public land is a precious and finite resource. The State cannot dispense it as largesse to privileged sections while neglecting its duties to the broader public.”
Justice Sanjay Karol, concurring, highlighted the detrimental impact of such policies on public trust and governance, stating:
“The government must act as a custodian of public resources, ensuring they are utilized for the greater good rather than private enrichment.”
The Court also criticized the relaxation of eligibility criteria under GO 522, which allowed individuals who already owned property or had benefited from previous allotments to receive additional plots. It noted that such practices perpetuated inequality and deprived genuinely needy citizens of housing opportunities.
The Decision
The Supreme Court quashed the allotments made under the impugned GOs, directing the government to:
1. Restore All Land to the State: All land parcels allocated under the GOs must be reverted to government control.
2. Ensure Transparent Policies: Future allotments must adhere to stricter eligibility criteria and be guided by principles of transparency and equality.
3. Publish Beneficiary Details: The government was directed to make beneficiary details public and allow objections to ensure accountability.
The judgment also called for stringent penalties, including civil and criminal actions, against those providing false declarations during the allotment process.
