- (1.) The Maharashtra Government allotted certain plots of land to the Foreshore Cooperative Housing Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society) , a cooperative Society formed by some sitting and retired Judges of the Supreme court and Bombay High court. The land was originally allotted to the Society on a ground rent calculated at 8 per centof the value of the land worked out at Rs. 2,280. 00 per sq. metre but, by a letter dated 21/01/1990 (the correct date appears to be 2/01/1990, the ground rent was reduced to six and a half per cent per annum on the value of the land calculated at the rate of Rs. 1,050. 00 per sq. metre. A writ petition was filed by the Nivara Hakk Suraksha Samiti, Bombay, by way of public interest litigation, challenging the validity of the above allotment and reduction in lease rent. The High court, after hearing contentions of both the parties, upheld the allotment but set aside the reduction of the lease rent as per the letter dated 21/01/1990. The writ petitioners before the High court as well as the Society have preferred these petitions for special leave before us.
(2.) In support of his petition, Shri Sebastian, learned counsel for the writ-petitioners raised four contentions: The first contention was that the allotment of land to the Society was in violation of paragraph 11 of the guidelines issued by the government for allotment of lands in the city of Bombay for housing purposes. He pointed out that under this paragraph the Collector was required to issue public notices regarding the availability of plots for allotment for housing purposes. Clause 4 of the guidelines provided for certain rules of priority in 'the matter of allotment and paragraph 7 required that the comparative merits of various applicants should be examined before any allotment was made. Learned counsel submitted that the allotment to the Society was made without observing these salutary guidelines. The High court pointed out that paragraph II relied upon by the learned counsel itself contains an exception that the rule regarding prior publicity will not apply in cases where one or two plots are available for disposal in isolation and held that the present case falls under this exception. Learned counsel submits that this finding of the High court overlooks that this exception is not available in cases where, as here, a layout is prepared in accordance with the local development control rules making a number of plots available for disposal. He also submits that this was a case where more than two plots were allotted to the Society and that the exception is not attracted. So far as the first aspect is concerned, we may point out that though there is a reference to some layout, there is no material before us to conclude that a number of plots were allotted to various societies on the basis of a layout so prepared and that the allotment to the Society is not a case of allotment in isolation. Though learned counsel mentioned that allotment had been made to this Society as well as to a number of other societies of a vast area of land known as Queen's Barracks, no facts were placed on record before us or before High court in support of this contention. On the contrary the contention as urged before the High court was only that in the present case what had been allotted to the Society "were not just two plots but also the 78 strip of land abutting thereon" and that, therefore, the exception does not apply. The High court has pointed out that what was allotted to the Society was only two plots of land and that a part of abutting strip of land was allotted to the Society when it had been surrendered by a previous tenant on the land. The High court came to the conclusion that, in the circumstances, the allotment to the Society was basically of the two plots and that the allotment of the strip of land abutting thereon did not take the case out of the exception made in Rule II of the guidelines. We see no reason to interfere with this conclusion which is primarily one of fact. In particular we may point out that what is being challenged is not the violation of any statute or rule but only certain guidelines which, it has been repeatedly pointed out in judgments of this court, are more or less broad policy considerations from which minor deviations are permissible if the circumstances justify the same. In our opinion, the reference to "one or two plots" in the guidelines is not to be construed rigidly. Since the High court has been satisfied that this was not a case of allotment of a large number of plots but only two or even three plots in isolation, its conclusion that there is substantial compliance with the terms of the guidelines, does not call for any interference.
(3.) Shri Sebastian then argued that para 11 of the guidelines should be declared unconstitutional since there is no justification to dispense with the rule of publicity even in the allotment of one or two plots. This contention was repelled by the High court by pointing out that there was nothing unreasonable about a government policy that press notes need not be issued where only one or two isolated plots are available for allotment and that all that was necessary is that even the allotment of such isolated plots must be bona fide and in the public interest. We agree. We would also like to point out that paragraph 11 is really intended to protect public interest and to ensure that land is allotted after due publicity so that all persons interested may compete therefor and their relative merits assessed but that an exception to provide for allotment of minor extents of land does not really constitute an objectionable inroad into the salutary public policy. We are, therefore, of the opinion that paragraph 11 is not unconstitutional as contended for by the learned counsel.;