Supreme Court Refuses To Review 2024 Judgment Quashing Hyderabad Land Allotments For MP/MLAs, Judges, Journalists, IAS Officers Etc

The Supreme Court today dismissed review petitions filed against its November, 2024 judgment which quashed preferential allotment of lands to housing societies of MPs, MLAs, civil servants, judges, defense personnel, journalists etc. within the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation limits.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih passed the order on the review petitions after hearing a battery of advocates/senior advocates including Senior Advocates CS Vaidyanathan, Anitha Shenoy, Mukul Rohatgi, Siddharth Luthra, Atmaram Nadkarni, Bikashranjan Bhattacharya, Jaideep Gupta and Dama Seshadri Naidu (for review-petitioners) and Senior Advocate Raghenth Basant (for respondents).

Pleading for "mercy" and consideration on the ground of "equity", it was argued on behalf of the review-petitioners that the land allotments were made in 2008, after which constructions were carried out and today, in 2025, they have nowhere else to go. A willingness to pay market rates, as deemed fit by the Court, was also expressed on behalf of some.

One of the legal propositions contested was that separate categories of MPs, MLA, IAS officers, etc. cannot be created for the purposes of housing. In this regard, it was argued that people of these categories get several facilities during their service, and it may not be correct to say that when the object is housing, people across the country should be treated alike.

With regard to journalists, it was contended that they do not constitute a "privileged" class, however, have been treated as such at par with MPs, MLAs, IAS officers etc. Journalists have salaries ranging between Rs.8000-30000 and do not have pensionary benefits, the review-petitioners claimed, while contrasting them with MPs, MLAs, IAS officers, etc., who get pension, gratuity, HRA, salaries of about Rs.2.5 lakhs and other benefits. Further, journalists' role as fourth pillar of democracy was pressed into service, to highlight that there is a need to protect them so they can safely perform their work. "Unequals being treated equally and without data, we are being treated as privileged", argued Shenoy, while beseeching the Court to let the state look at each journalist's case independently to see if they are "privileged" and decide accordingly.

However, the bench was not convinced. "No case for review is made out. Review petitions are dismissed", said Justice Datta.

To recap, in November, 2024, a bench of then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta quashed the Andhra Pradesh Government Memoranda (GoM) of 2005 classifying MPs, MLAs, officers of the AIl India Service/State Government, Judges of the Constitutional Courts, and journalists as a separate class for allotment of land at the basic rate. The Court also quashed the subsequent GoMs issued in 2008 allotting the lands within the limits of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to these classes as bad in law, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Being of the view that the allotment policy suffered from the malaise of unreasonableness and arbitrariness, and promoted inequality, leading to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court dismissed the appeals filed by the State Government, the Cooperative Societies and their members against a 2010 judgment of the Telangana High Court.

"The allocation of land at basic rates to select privileged groups reflects a “capricious” and “irrational” approach. This is a classic case of executive action steeped in arbitrariness, but clothed in the guise of legitimacy, by stating that the ostensible purpose of the policy was to allot land to “deserving sections of society”. Shorn of pretence, this policy of the State Government, is an abuse of power meant to cater exclusively to the affluent sections of the society, disapproving and rejecting the equal right to allotment of the common citizen and the socio-economically disadvantaged," the Court observed.

The judgment, authored by Justice Khanna, opined that a policy of preferential allotment undermines solidarity and fraternity and State cannot use discretion to benefit a few elites. It also said that journalists could not be treated as a separate class for preferential treatment. While cancelling the allotments, the Court ordered restitution and directed that the Cooperative Societies/their members will be entitled to a refund of the entire amount deposited by them, including stamp duty and registration fee, alongwith interest (to be quantified by the State of Telangana).

The Court further stated that the lease deeds executed by State of Telangana in favor of the societies/members would be treated as cancelled. Similarly, development charges/expenses paid by the Cooperative Societies/members, as reflected in the books of accounts of the Cooperative Societies/members, duly certified by the income-tax returns, will be refunded to them along with interest at the rates specified.

Aggrieved by this judgment, the present review petitions were filed.

Case Title: GANDURI KAMAKSHI DEVI Versus DR RAO V.B.J. CHELIKANI AND ORS., Diary No. 429-2025 (and connected cases) 

Click Here To Read/Download Order