Government actions involving public resources must be rooted in fairness and transparency.

Facts of the Case:

This case pertains to appeals challenging a judgment by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The case revolves around the allocation of government land to cooperative societies under various Government Orders (GoMs), such as Nos. 242, 243, and 244, issued by the Andhra Pradesh Government. The cooperative societies consisted of members like MLAs, MPs, Judges, and government officers. These allotments were made at concessional rates, sparking controversy over fairness and constitutional validity.

Contentions of the Appellants:

1. The appellants (State of Andhra Pradesh and others) argued that the land allocations were part of a legitimate housing scheme intended to provide residential security to certain groups contributing to governance.
2. They claimed these groups (e.g., government employees, MPs, MLAs) formed a distinct class deserving such benefits.
3. The allotments followed proper administrative procedures, and significant development investments were already made by cooperative societies.

Contentions of the Respondents:

1. The respondents (public interest litigants and petitioners) contended that the allotments were arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality.
2. They argued the policy disproportionately favoured affluent and privileged individuals, side-lining those in actual need of housing.
3. The public lands were undervalued and sold at concessional rates, leading to loss of public revenue.

Issues:

1. Whether the land allotment policy under the GoMs was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
2. Whether the classification of beneficiaries (MPs, MLAs, Judges, etc.) constituted a reasonable basis for differential treatment.
3. Whether the procedural relaxations in the allotment violated public interest and constitutional principles.
4. Whether public resources like government land should have been auctioned for fair valuation instead of being allocated at concessional rates.

Observations/Findings by the Supreme Court:

1. The Court observed that the principles of equality and fairness under Article 14 were not upheld, as the policy favoured privileged individuals over the general public.
2. The allotments lacked transparency, and public resources were undervalued, compromising public interest.
3. The classification of beneficiaries did not have sufficient rationale, as many beneficiaries already owned land or houses.
4. The Court emphasized that government actions must prioritize public welfare and avoid favouritism.

Principle of the Case:

Public resources like land must be distributed in a manner that ensures fairness, equality, and transparency. Government actions must avoid arbitrary classifications or concessions favoring privileged individuals at the expense of public interest.

Final Order:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to quash the impugned GoMs and directed that all land parcels be restored to the government. Fresh allotments, if any, were to be made in line with new government orders ensuring fairness and constitutional compliance.

Impact on Public Law and Order:

This judgment reaffirms the principle that government actions involving public resources must be rooted in fairness and transparency. It discourages favoritism, ensuring that public trust in governance is maintained and reducing public dissent over perceived injustices.

Case Citation:

Supreme Court of India
State of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. Dr. Rao, V.B.J. Chelikani and Others
Civil Appeal Nos. 3791-3793 of 2011 and connected cases
Date of Judgment: November 25, 2024