RAVINDRA BAJPAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is a journalist by occupation has filed this petition pro bono publico in which challenge has been made to legality and the validity of the order; Annexure P-l, dated 26-7-1996/22-8-1996 issued by the State Government, by which the State Government allotted the land admeasuring 6.16 acres on lease to respondent No. 2, namely, M.P. Rajya Sahkari Awas Sangh, Bhopal for the purpose of construction of residential houses for existing as well as ex-MPs and MLAs.

(2.) the petitioner, as stated supra, is a journalist and is engaged in social activities of various types. There is a State Capital Project area in the city of Bhopal. Aforesaid capital project area is situate in prime locality of city of Bhopal. By order dated 26-7-1996/22-8-1996 (Annexure P-l), the land admeasuring 6.16 acres of khasra No. 1 situated at capital project area has been allotted on permanent lease for a premium of Rs. 22,70,068 and annual ground rent of Rs. 1,13,503/- on terms and conditions mentioned therein to ex as well as existing Members of Parliament and MLAs The petitioner has further averred that the Collector, Bhopal has issued guidelines regarding valuation of lands contained in Annexure P-3 for the purpose of registration. Market value of the land in question in no case can be less than Rs. 160/- per sq. ft. as the land is situated in prime locality. However, the same has been allotted at a throw-away price of Rs. 11.25 per sq. ft. Premium fixed by the State Government in respect of the land under the allotment is shockingly disproportionate. There is no justification for reserving the land for sale of plots/houses in favour of present or past MPs or MLAs as no privilege can be given to them as they do not form a class by themselves. Accordingly, the petitioner has sought relief for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 26-7-1996/22-8-1996 (Annexure P-l) and a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-State not to issue any lease in favour of respondent No. 2 for allotment of plots to ex as well as existing MPs and MLAs.

(3.) A return has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 3,' namely, the State Government and the Collector, Bhopal in which inter alia, it is pleaded that the petitioner is a busy body and has no concern whatsoever with' the public interest or public activities. The State Government has allotted the lands to journalists also at concessional rates. The petitioner belongs to a class which has already availed the benefit of allotment of land at concessional terms and, therefore, he cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the same benefit extended to another class of persons. Initially 52 acres of land was reserved for respondent No. 2 in the year 1975. Unfortunately only 29.17 acres of land out of the aforesaid 52 acres of lands was vacant. Aforesaid 29.17 acres of land was allotted to respondent No. 2 at concessional rates. On the land admeasuring 29.17, respondent No. 2 has already constructed a housing residential colony known as Rachna Nagar. Land admeasuring 6.16 acres of the remaining area was lying vacant. On an application being made by M.P. State Housing Co-operative Society for allotment of the aforesaid land for the purpose of construction of houses for ex as well as existent MPs and MLAs, the State Government took a decision to reserve the land for the aforesaid purpose vide order dated 5-1-1996. Ultimately, after approval of the Cabinet, Revenue Department has issued the order of allotment. It has been pointed out that as per provisions of revenue book circular whenever the land is allotted to any housing society for construction of residential colony, premium and lease rent is calculated only on 60% of the total area allotted as 40% of the land is utilized on account of development activities such as roads, drainage, etc. Accordingly, the premium and lease rent in the instant case were-fixed at Rs. 22,70,068 and Rs. 1,13,503/- respectively. It has further been pleaded that land in question has not been allotted to existing as well as ex MPs and MLAs but to the respondent No. 2 which shall develop the land and shall construct houses thereon and thereafter the same shall be allotted and sold to existing as well as ex MPs and MLAs, who are interested in purchasing the residential houses. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that land has been allotted at Rs. 14.10 per sq. ft. incorrect as the land shall be developed by respondent No. 2- federation and residential houses shall be constructed thereon as stated supra and, therefore, the rate of dwelling houses shall be fixed subsequently by federation in accordance with law. It has further been submitted that previously also the State Government has allotted land to persons belonging to particular categories or professions such as doctors, advocates, etc. Land was also allotted to M.P. Police Housing Development Society for allotment of plots to police officers. Land has also been allotted on earlier occasion to Shramjivi Patrakar Housing Society for allotment of plots to journalists. Similarly, M.P. Railway Workers Housing Development Society has also been allotted the land by the State Government for allotment of plots to Railways workers. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination the action of allotment of land to respondent No. 2, which is in question in present petition can be said to be either arbitrary or discriminatory. It has further been pleaded that rate fixed by the Collector as contained in Annexure P-3 are in respect of developed plots and the same cannot furnish the basis for assessing the market value of the land allotted to respondent No. 2, which is undeveloped. By the time the development takes place the market value of the rate may be more. It is further stated that the land in question is situate adjacent to an area of 2 acres which is earmarked for shifting the slum dwellers and also in close vicinity of cremation ground and, therefore, there would be no appreciation in the market value of the land even after development. It has been pleaded that pursuant to the order (Annexure P-l) the federation has paid the premium and possession has already been handed over to the respondent No. 2 and lease deed has already been executed in favour of the respondent No. 2 on 17-12-1998 in respect of land in question.