Bombay High Court Quashes Plot Allotment: “Lack of Public Advertisement Violated Fairness and Transparency in Public Property Disposal

Facts:
The petitioners, Gorai Nagar Maharashtra Grihanirman Vasahat Sanghatana, challenged the allotment of a plot of land to Ayyappa Seva Samiti (the fifth respondent) by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), under the directives of the State Government.

The disputed plot, bearing City Survey No. 240 (Part) and Survey No. 25 (Part) in Borivali (West), Mumbai, was allegedly intended for constructing a social welfare center, according to the original MHADA scheme.

Issues:
Whether the allotment of the subject plot to the fifth respondent without issuing a public advertisement violated the principles of fairness and transparency.

Whether the decision to allot the plot to the fifth respondent, considering it was previously granted another plot that was later canceled, was justified.

Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioners argued that the allotment was made without following the due process of public advertisement and without considering other eligible applicants, which was against the consistent stand of MHADA and the State Government.

They contended that the fifth respondent had intentions of using the plot for religious purposes, which was against the rules governing such allotments.

Respondent’s Arguments:
MHADA and the State Government defended the allotment, stating that it was made under Regulation 16 of the 1982 Regulations, which allows the State Government to direct the disposal of plots reserved for amenities.

The fifth respondent claimed that the allotment was made following the cancellation of an earlier allotment in Borivali and that it had no intention of constructing a temple on the new plot.

Court’s Reasoning:
The court found that the allotment to the fifth respondent was made without issuing a public advertisement, which violated the principles of fairness and transparency in the disposal of public property.

The court noted serious inconsistencies in the affidavits filed by the State Government and MHADA and highlighted that the previous Division Bench’s guidelines in similar cases were not followed.

Conclusion:
The Bombay High Court quashed the allotment of the subject plot to the fifth respondent, directing MHADA to resume possession of the plot immediately.
The court emphasized that any future allotment of the plot should follow a fair and transparent process, including issuing a public advertisement.