Bombay High Court Quashes Allotment of Plot to Ayyappa Seva Samiti in Gorai Nagar MHADA Colony — Allotment Made Without Advertisement or Transparent Process Violates 1982 Regulations. Court sets aside allotment of a plot earmarked for a socio-cultural centre, directing MHADA to consider the petitioner society's application afresh after issuing public advertisement.

Writ petition challenging allotment of a plot of land by MHADA to the 5th respondent without following transparent procedure.

Petitioners sought quashing of the allotment of the subject plot to the 5th respondent and allotment of the same to the petitioners.

Petitioners alleged that the subject plot was earmarked for a social welfare centre and that they had applied for allotment in 1981, but MHADA allotted it to the 5th respondent without advertisement or transparent process.

Status quo order dated 20 March 2003 by Division Bench; petition admitted on 9 March 2004 with ad-interim relief continuing; State Government filed two affidavits on 10 July 2003 and 10 December 2003, and a third on 9 March 2004.

Whether the allotment of the subject plot to the 5th respondent by MHADA based on directives of the State Government under Regulation 16 of the 1982 Regulations, without issuing any advertisement or following a transparent procedure, is legal and valid. Whether the petitioners have a legitimate expectation that the plot would be allotted only after advertisement.

Petitioners argued that the subject plot was earmarked for a socio-cultural centre and they had applied in 1981; MHADA consistently stated that allotment would be made only after advertisement; the allotment to the 5th respondent was clandestine and arbitrary. Respondents (State and MHADA) argued that the allotment was made under Regulation 16 of the 1982 Regulations based on directives of the State Government, and that the petitioners had no right to the plot.

Allotment of public land by MHADA must be done through a transparent process, including issuance of advertisement inviting applications. A directive under Regulation 16 of the 1982 Regulations cannot override the requirement of transparency. Any allotment made without following such process is arbitrary and illegal.

The dispute in this petition is about the allotment of a plot of land ... by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents- Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (“MHADA”), based allegedly on directives of the State Government issued under Regulation 16 of the Maharashtra Housing Area Development (Disposal of Land) Regulations (“1982 Regulations”). Thus, the consistent stand of MHADA was that the subject plot would not be allotted unless a proper advertisement was issued ... Such averments have been made in the petition and the same have not even been denied by the MHADA or the State Government by filing any proper response. The so-called justification for allotment of the plot to the 5th respondent is set out in paragraph 2. This could hardly be called a ‘comprehensive affidavit of a responsible officer on behalf of the State Government justifying the allotment of said plot to the 5th respondent’.

The petition was filed in 2003. On 20 March 2003, a Division Bench directed status quo. On 11 June 2003, respondents were directed to file affidavits. The State Government filed affidavits on 10 July 2003 and 10 December 2003. On 10 February 2004, the court directed the State to file a comprehensive affidavit justifying the allotment. On 9 March 2004, a three-paragraph affidavit was filed. The petition was admitted on 9 March 2004 with ad-interim relief continuing. The matter was finally heard and judgment pronounced on 12 August 2024.

• Maharashtra Housing Area Development (Disposal of Land) Regulations, 1982: Regulation 16
• Bombay Public Trusts Act:
• Societies Registration Act: