'Preferential Allotment To A Few Elites Promotes Inequality': Supreme Court Quashes Land Allotment For MPs, MLAs, Judges Etc In Hyderabad

The Supreme Court today quashed the preferential allotment of lands to the housing societies of MPs, MLAs, civil servants, Judges, defence personnel, journalists etc. within the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation limits. The Court held such a policy to be suffering from the malaise of unreasonableness and arbitrariness, and promoting inequality leading to the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta quashed the Andhra Pradesh Government Memoranda (GoM) of 2005 classifying MPs, MLAs, officers of the AIl India Service/State Government, Judges of the Constitutional Courts, and journalists as a separate class for allotment of land at the basic rate. The Court also quashed the subsequent GoMs issued in 2008 allotting the lands within the limits of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to these classes as bad in law, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the State Government and the Cooperative Societies and their members against a 2010 judgment of the Telangana High Court. The allotments were made to Cooperative Societies composed of members of various groups, including Members of Parliament, Members of both houses of the State Legislature3, officers of All India Services, Judges of the Supreme Court and High Court, State Government employees, defence personnel, journalists and individuals from weaker sections of society."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”. Shorn of pretence, this policy of the State Government, is an abuse of power meant to cater exclusively to the affluent sections of the society, disapproving and rejecting the equal right to allotment of the common citizen and the socio-economically disadvantaged," the Court observed.Policy of preferential allotment undermines solidarity and fraternityThe judgment authored by Justice Khanna observed :"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. This preferential treatment conveys 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 foster resentment and disillusionment among ordinary citizens, who perceive these actions as corrupt or unjust, thereby eroding trust in democratic institutions. This policy undermines solidarity and fraternity, reinforcing societal hierarchies rather than actively working to dismantle them."Journalists can't be treated as a separate class for preferential treatment"We are also of the opinion that, accredited journalists cannot be treated as a separate class for such preferential treatment. In fact, a careful study of the policy indicates that higher echelons of all the three wings of the government, —legislators, bureaucrats, and Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts—have been afforded such preferential treatment. Journalists, who are considered the fourth pillar of democracy, have also been included. These four pillars of democracy are expected to act as checks and balances on the arbitrary exercise of the State's power. However, the distribution of such extraordinary State benefits renders nugatory the very optics of healthy checks and balances within our democratic system."Allotment policy suffers from malaise of unreasonableness and arbitrariness"Thus, the core framework of these policies suffers from the 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 State holds all its resources in trust for its citizens, to be utilised in larger public and social interest. The State, including the three organs – Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary, are de facto trustees and agents/repositories which function and govern for the benefit of the citizens who are the beneficiaries"Policy perpetuates inequality"We are of the opinion that Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court, MPs, MLAs, officers of the AIS, journalists etc. cannot be treated as a separate category for allotment of land at a discounted basic value in preference to others. The object of the policy perpetuates inequality. The policy differentiates and bestows largesse to an...

'Preferential Allotment To A Few Elites Promotes Inequality': Supreme Court Quashes Land Allotment For MPs, MLAs, Judges Etc In Hyderabad

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Preferential treatment conveys the message that some individuals are entitled to more based on their status, the Court said.

Tags