# State of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. Dr. Rao, V.B.J. Chelikani and Others

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 894
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-11-25
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 13060 of 2024
- **Bench:** Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-others-v-dr-rao-v-b-j-chelikani-and-others-37689
- **Pages:** 59

## Headnote

Issue arose that whether the Government, like any private
individual, have the absolute discretion to frame policy, distribute
resources and enter into a contract with whomsoever it pleases,
on any terms and conditions it so desires.
Headnotes†
Government policy - Land allocation policy - Distribution
of State largesse - State distributing public land in the
State of Telangana - Allotment of land parcels, vide several
State Government Memoranda within the Greater Hyderabad
Municipal Corporation limits through Cooperative Societies -
GoM Nos. 243 and 244 dated 28.02.2005; GoM Nos. 420, 422
to 425 dated 25.03.2008 and GoM No. 551 dated 27.03.2008
whereby MPs, MLAs, officers of the AIS/State Government,
Judges of the Constitutional Courts, and journalists classified
as a separate class for allotment of land at the basic rate -
Constitutional validity:
Held: GoM Nos. 243 and 244 dated 28.02.2005 quashed to
the extent they classify MPs, MLAs, officers of the AIS/State
Government, Judges of the Constitutional Courts, and journalists
as a separate class for allotment of land at the basic rate - GoM
Nos. 419, 420, 422 to 425 dated 25.03.2008, and GoM No. 551
dated 27.03.2008, declared bad in law, being violative of Art.14 -
Allocation of land at basic rates to select privileged groups reflects
a "capricious", "irrational" and arbitrary approach - 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 socioeconomically disadvantaged - Doctrine of manifest arbitrariness is
*Author
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
1367
State of Andhra Pradesh and Others v.
Dr. Rao, V.B.J. Chelikani and Others
applicable - Government servants, elected legislators, Judges in the
Supreme Court and High Court, and prominent journalists do not
belong to the "weaker" or per se deserving sections of the society,
warranting special State reservations/preferential treatment to land
allotment - When the government allocates land at discounted rates
to the privileged few, it engenders a system of inequality, conferring
upon them a material advantage that remains inaccessible to the
common citizen - This preferential treatment conveys practices
foster resentment and disillusionment among ordinary citizens, who
perceive these actions as corrupt or unjust, thereby eroding trust
in democratic institutions - This policy undermines solidarity and
fraternity, reinforcing societal hierarchies rather than actively working
to dismantle them - When land is offered at a discounted rate, it
distorts the natural market forces that govern the value of land -
This has severe financial ramifications for the public exchequer -
Furthermore, the accredited journalists cannot be treated as a
separate class for such preferential treatment - Core framework
of these policies suffers from the malaise of unreasonableness
and arbitrariness - It reeks of colourable exercise of power
whereby the policymakers are bestowing valuable resources to
their peers and ilk, triggering a cycle of illegal distribution of State
resources - Allotment policy fails to satisfy the requirements of the
two-pronged classification test coupled with arbitrariness - To test
the facts against the standards of substantive equality, the Judges
of the Supreme Court and the High Court, MPs, MLAs, officers of
the AIS, journalists etc. cannot be treated as a separate category
for allotment of land at a discounted basic value in preference to
others - Order of restitution passed and Cooperative Societies and
their members, entitled to refund of the entire amount deposited
by them, including stamp duty and registration fee, development
charges/expenses paid by them, along with interest - Constitution
of India - Art.14. [Paras 76, 77, 79, 80-83, 85-92, 94]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.11 - Res Judicata and
constructive Res Judicata - Applicability - Plea of the
Cooperative Societie

## Text

_Characters 0–39,742 of 134,064. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39742 for what follows._

[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1366 : 2024 INSC 894
State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
v.
Dr. Rao, V.B.J. Chelikani and Others
(Civil Appeal No(s). 3791-3793 of 2011)
25 November 2024
[Sanjiv Khanna,* CJI and Dipankar Datta, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose that whether the Government, like any private
individual, have the absolute discretion to frame policy, distribute
resources and enter into a contract with whomsoever it pleases,
on any terms and conditions it so desires.
Headnotes†
Government policy - Land allocation policy - Distribution
of State largesse - State distributing public land in the
State of Telangana - Allotment of land parcels, vide several
State Government Memoranda within the Greater Hyderabad
Municipal Corporation limits through Cooperative Societies -
GoM Nos. 243 and 244 dated 28.02.2005; GoM Nos. 420, 422
to 425 dated 25.03.2008 and GoM No. 551 dated 27.03.2008
whereby MPs, MLAs, officers of the AIS/State Government,
Judges of the Constitutional Courts, and journalists classified
as a separate class for allotment of land at the basic rate -
Constitutional validity:
Held: GoM Nos. 243 and 244 dated 28.02.2005 quashed to
the extent they classify MPs, MLAs, officers of the AIS/State
Government, Judges of the Constitutional Courts, and journalists
as a separate class for allotment of land at the basic rate - GoM
Nos. 419, 420, 422 to 425 dated 25.03.2008, and GoM No. 551
dated 27.03.2008, declared bad in law, being violative of Art.14 -
Allocation of land at basic rates to select privileged groups reflects
a "capricious", "irrational" and arbitrary approach - 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 socioeconomically disadvantaged - Doctrine of manifest arbitrariness is
*Author
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
1367
State of Andhra Pradesh and Others v.
Dr. Rao, V.B.J. Chelikani and Others
applicable - Government servants, elected legislators, Judges in the
Supreme Court and High Court, and prominent journalists do not
belong to the "weaker" or per se deserving sections of the society,
warranting special State reservations/preferential treatment to land
allotment - When the government allocates land at discounted rates
to the privileged few, it engenders a system of inequality, conferring
upon them a material advantage that remains inaccessible to the
common citizen - This preferential treatment conveys practices
foster resentment and disillusionment among ordinary citizens, who
perceive these actions as corrupt or unjust, thereby eroding trust
in democratic institutions - This policy undermines solidarity and
fraternity, reinforcing societal hierarchies rather than actively working
to dismantle them - When land is offered at a discounted rate, it
distorts the natural market forces that govern the value of land -
This has severe financial ramifications for the public exchequer -
Furthermore, the accredited journalists cannot be treated as a
separate class for such preferential treatment - Core framework
of these policies suffers from the malaise of unreasonableness
and arbitrariness - It reeks of colourable exercise of power
whereby the policymakers are bestowing valuable resources to
their peers and ilk, triggering a cycle of illegal distribution of State
resources - Allotment policy fails to satisfy the requirements of the
two-pronged classification test coupled with arbitrariness - To test
the facts against the standards of substantive equality, the Judges
of the Supreme Court and the High Court, MPs, MLAs, officers of
the AIS, journalists etc. cannot be treated as a separate category
for allotment of land at a discounted basic value in preference to
others - Order of restitution passed and Cooperative Societies and
their members, entitled to refund of the entire amount deposited
by them, including stamp duty and registration fee, development
charges/expenses paid by them, along with interest - Constitution
of India - Art.14. [Paras 76, 77, 79, 80-83, 85-92, 94]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.11 - Res Judicata and
constructive Res Judicata - Applicability - Plea of the
Cooperative Societies and its members that the principle of
res judicata and constructive res judicata would apply to the
instant case:
Held: Res judicata will not apply, as the previous judgment did
not examine the constitutional validity of GoM Nos. 243 and 244 -
1368
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
GoM Nos. 420, 422 to 425 dated 25.03.2008 had not been issued
at the time the said judgment was pronounced and hence, could
never have been challenged - Plea of the Cooperative Societies
that the principle of constructive res judicata should apply to the
examination of the challenge to GOM Nos. 243 and 244, cannot be
accepted - Principles of constructive res judicata should not have
been applied, given the significant public interest at stake - Once
the allotments were cancelled and the writ petition was allowed,
the State had the opportunity to re-evaluate the entire issue in
light of the findings recorded - Members of the public cannot be
restrained in filing writ petition challenging GoM Nos. 243 and 244 -
Constructive res judicata applies only when the cause of action is
identical - Causes of action in the two litigation proceedings should
not be considered identical, as the first litigation focused on the
allotment and its terms and conditions - GoM Nos. 243 and 244
are separate and distinct from the allotment itself, and challenging
these notifications constitutes a separate and independent cause
of action. [Paras 35, 38, 39]
Constitution of India - Art.14 - Equality before law - Test of
reasonable classification - Concept of substantive equality -
Substantive equality test - Explained. [Paras 48, 52, 56, 59,
67, 68, 73, 74]
Case Law Cited
Forward Construction Company and Others v. Municipal Corporation
of Greater Bombay [1985] Supp. 3 SCR 766 : (1986) 1 SCC
100; State of Karnataka and Another v. All India Manufacturers
Organisation and Others [2006] Supp. 1 SCR 86 : (2006) 4 SCC
683; V. Purushotham Rao v. Union of India and Others [2001]
Supp. 4 SCR 411 : (2001) 10 SCC 305; National Confederation
of Officers Association of Central Public Sector Enterprises and
Others v. Union of India and Others [2021] 10 SCR 954 : (2022)
4 SCC 764; Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of
U.P. [1990] 3 SCR 72 : 1989 Supp (1) 504; Erusian Equipment
and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal [1975] 2 SCR 674 :
(1975) 1 SCC 70; Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International
Airport Authority of India [1979] 3 SCR 1014 : (1979) 3 SCC 489;
Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India [1996]
Supp. 9 SCR 296 : (1996) 6 SCC 530; Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State
of Uttar Pradesh [1990] Supp. 1 SCR 625 : (1991) 1 SCC 212;
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
1369
State of Andhra Pradesh and Others v.
Dr. Rao, V.B.J. Chelikani and Others
Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation
[2014] 9 SCR 283 : (2014) 8 SCC 682; Ram Krishna Dalmia v.
Justice S.R. Tendolkar [1959] 1 SCR 279 : AIR 1958 SC 538;
Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vithal Rao and Others [1973] 3 SCR
39 : (1973) 1 SCC 500; In Re: The Special Courts Bill, 1978 [1979]
2 SCR 476 : (1979) 1 SCC 380; State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali
Sarkar [1952] 1 SCR 284 : (1952) 1 SCC 1; Kathi Raning Rawat
v. State of Saurashtra [1952] 1 SCR 435 : (1952) 1 SCC 215;
State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa [1974] 1 SCR
771 : (1974) 1 SCC 19; Hiral P. Harsora and Others v. Kusum
Narottamdas Harsora and Others [2016] 9 SCR 515 : (2016) 10
SCC 165; Union of India v. N.S. Rathnam & Sons [2015] 8 SCR
751 : (2015) 10 SCC 681; LIC v. Consumer Education Centre
[1995] Supp. 1 SCR 349 : (1995) 5 SCC 482; Indian Council
for Legal Aid and Advice v. Bar Council of India [1995] 1 SCR
304 : (1995) 1 SCC 732; Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi
[1981] 2 SCR 79 : (1981) 1 SCC 722; A.L. Kalra v. Project and
Equipment Corporation of India Ltd [1984] 3 SCR 646 : (1984) 3
SCC 316, 328; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978] 2 SCR
621 : (1978) 1 SCC 248; Shayara Bano v. Union of India [2017]
9 SCR 797 : (2017) 9 SCC 1; National Legal Services Authority
v. Union of India and Others [2014] 5 SCR 119 : (2014) 5 SCC
438; Navtej Johar v. Union of India [2018] 7 SCR 379 : (2018)
10 SCC 1; Lt. Col. Nitisha v. Union of India [2021] 4 SCR 633
: (2021) 15 SCC 125; Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India
[1950] 1 SCR 869 : AIR 1951 SC 41; Anuj Garg and Others v.
Hotel Association of India and Others [2007] 12 SCR 991 : (2008)
3 SCC 1; E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu [1974] 2 SCR
348 : (1974) 4 SCC 3; Joseph Shine v. Union of India [2018]
11 SCR 765 : (2019) 3 SCC 39; Ram & Shyam Co. v. State of
Haryana [1985] Supp. 1 SCR 541 : (1985) 3 SCC 267; NOIDA
Entrepreneurs Association v. NOIDA and Others [2011] 8 SCR
25 : (2011) 6 SCC 508 - referred to.
Greenhalgh v. Mallard (1947) 2 All England Reporter 255 (CA);
Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia [1989] 1 SCR 143;
Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1999]
1 SCR 497; R. v. Kapp [2008] 2 SCR 483; Withler v. Canada
(Attorney General) [2011] 1 SCR 396; Quebec (Attorney General)
v. A [2012] 1 SCR 61; Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General) [2020]
3 SCR 113; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558 - referred to.
1370
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Books and Periodicals Cited
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Alienation of State Lands & Land
Revenue Rules, 1975; Sandra Fredman, "Substantive Equality
Revisited", I.CON (2016), Vol. 14 No. 3, 712-738 - referred to.
List of Acts
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Alienation of State Lands &
Land Revenue Rules, 1975; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Andhra
Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317F; Stamp Act,
1899; Assignment of House Sites in Villages & Towns in Telangana
Area Rules, 1975.
List of Keywords
Absolute discretion to frame policy; Distribution of resources; State
largesse; State distributing public land in the State of Telangana;
Allotment of land parcels; Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
limits; GoM Nos. 243 and 244 dated 28.02.2005; GoM Nos. 420,
422 to 425 dated 25.03.2008; GoM No. 551 dated 27.03.2008; MPs,
MLAs, AIS/State Government officers, Judges of the Constitutional
Courts, and journalists classified as separate class for allotment
of land at basic rate; Allocation of land at basic rates to select
privileged groups; Capricious and irrational approach; Executive
action; Arbitrariness; Policy of the State Government; Abuse
of power; Affluent sections of the society; Right to allotment of
common citizen and socio-economically disadvantaged; Doctrine
of manifest arbitrariness; Arbitrariness inherent in land allocation
policy; State reservations to land allotment; Land, finite and highly
valuable resource; Densely populated urban areas; Access to
land for housing and economic activities; System of inequality;
Preferential treatment; Eroding trust in democratic institutions;
Societal hierarchies; Diminishes public revenue; Financial
ramifications; Public exchequer; Accredited journalists; Preferential
treatment; Higher echelons of three wings of the government,
legislators, bureaucrats; Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts;
Journalists; Fourth pillar of democracy; Distribution of extraordinary
State benefits; Healthy checks and balances within the democratic
system; Malaise of unreasonableness and arbitrariness; Colourable
exercise of power; Policymakers; Illegal distribution of State
resources; De facto trustees and agents/repositories; Allotment
policy; Two-pronged classification test coupled with arbitrariness;
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
1371
State of Andhra Pradesh and Others v.
Dr. Rao, V.B.J. Chelikani and Others
Standards of substantive equality; Allotment of land; Object of
policy perpetuates inequality; Promotes social-economic exclusion;
Small and privileged section/group; Equality and fairness standards;
Policy or law allotting land to public servants; Classification;
Substantive equality; Order of restitution; Cooperative Societies;
Refund of entire amount deposited; Stamp duty; Registration
fee; Development charges/expenses; Interest; Lease deeds; Res
Judicata; Constructive Res Judicata; Principles of constructive res
judicata; Public interest; Causes of action; Equality before law;
Test of reasonable classification; Concept of substantive equality;
Substantive equality test.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 3791-3793
of 2011
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.01.2010 of the High Court
of A.P. at Hyderabad in WP Nos. 7956, 7997 and 23682 of 2008
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 3794-3796, 3797-3799, 3800-3802, 3803, 38043806, 3807-3809 and 3810 of 2011, Civil Appeal No. 13060 of 2024
and Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 1122-1124 of 2023 In Civil Appeal
Nos. 3797-3799 of 2011
Appearances for Parties
R. Venkataramani, AG, Tushar Mehta, SG, Tapesh Kumar Singh,
Sr. Adv./A.A.G., Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Raghenth Basant,
S.S. Prasad, Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Rajshekhar Rao, Ms. Vibha
Dutta Makhija, Rajiv Dutta, Tapesh Kumar Singh, K. Ramakantha
Reddy, Sr. Advs., Ms. Devina Sehgal, Amit Bhandari, Ms. Somaya
Gupta, Praveen Kumar Singh, Ms. Priyansha Sharma, R.V.
Yogesh Venkata, Ms. Kaushitaki Sharma, Ms. Prerna Acharya,
Ms. Twinkle Rathi, M/s. Mclm & Co., Prashant Bhushan, Anurag
Tiwary, R. Nedumaran, Ms. C.K. Sucharita, Vinod Kumar Gupta,
Lavkesh Bhambhani, Utkarsh Pratap, Harshwardhan Thakur,
Chandan Kumar, Manoj C. Mishra, Pawan Sharma, Anuj Shah,
Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates,
Ashutosh Srivastava, Ms. Abhipsa Mohanty, Rajeev Singh, Guntur
Prabhakar, Ranjan Mukherjee, Amit Pawan, K.V. Vijayakumar, S.
Thananjayan, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Amit
1372
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Kumar Singh, Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Kumar
Dushyant Singh, Siddharth Dutta, Ms. Subasri Jaganathan, Ms.
G. Indira, Abinash Kumar Mishra, T.V. Ratnam, S. Udaya Kumar
Sagar, Bijoy Kumar Jain, Ms. Promila, C.K. Sasi, Ms. Meena K
Poulose, B. Krishna Prasad, Raghvendra Kumar, Gopal Singh,
Amrish Kumar, Mrs. Swati Ghildiyal, Navanjay Mahapatra, Mrs.
Sonali Jain, Raman Yadav, Chitvan Singhal, Kartikay Aggarwal,
Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Sateesh Galla, C. Raghavendren, Ch.
Leela Sarveswar, Saurabh Gupta, N. Rajaraman, Ms. Lihzu Shiney
Konyak, Ms. Astha Sharma, Narendra Kumar, Shuvodeep Roy,
Kabir Shankar Bose, Saurabh Tripathi, Devashish Bharuka, Ms.
Komal Agarwal, Ms. Kavya Vijay, Ms. Ashtha Chaudhary, Umesh
Chandra Srivastava, Ms. Praseena Elizabeth Joseph, Ms. Tulika
Mukherjee, Beenu Sharma, Venkat Narayan, Rushab Aggarwal,
Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Astik Gupta, Ms. Riddhima J Aggarwal,
Japnish Singh Bhatia, D. Abhinav Rao, Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki,
Polanki Gowtham, K.V. Girish Chowdary, T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy,
Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Meeran Maqbool, Ms. Archita Nigam, R.
Ravi, Manish Dua, Somanatha Padhan, G. Sheshagiri Rao, Ms.
Anu Gupta, Azmat H. Amanullah, Tirupati Gaurav Shahi, Avijit Mani
Tripathi, T.K. Nayak, Advs. for the appearing parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Sanjiv Khanna, CJI
Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19838 of 2010.
2.
This common judgment decides the cross appeals which impugn
the judgment dated 05.01.2010, of the Division Bench of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition Nos. 7956, 7997, and
23682 of 2008. These Writ Petitions challenged the allotment of
land parcels, vide several State Government Memoranda,1 within
the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation limits. The land was
allocated to Cooperative Societies composed of members of various
groups, including Members of Parliament,2 Members of both houses
1
For short, "GoM".
2
For short, "MP".
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
1373
State of Andhra Pradesh and Others v.
Dr. Rao, V.B.J. Chelikani and Others
of the State Legislature,3 officers of All India Services,4 Judges of
the Supreme Court and High Court,5 State Government employees,
defence personnel, journalists and individuals from weaker sections
of society.
3.
The High Court, in the impugned judgment, has partly allowed the
Writ Petitions, quashing the GoMs that laid down the allotment
policy and facilitate the allotments to the Cooperative Societies. It
held that the parcels of land allotted to the respondents were to be
restored to the Government, and that fresh allotments can only be
made following the issuance of appropriate GoMs consistent with the
judgment. The High Court further directed that before such GoMs
are issued, the State shall call for details of members who meet the
eligibility criteria; ensure they sign affidavits declaring their eligibility;
and publish this information on its website for public access. Any
false declaration will result in cancellation of the allotment, and
initiation of civil and criminal proceedings.
4.
While the Cooperative Societies, their members, and the State of
Telangana6 have preferred appeals contesting these directions, Mr.
Keshav Rao Jadhav, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 23682/2008,
has filed a cross-appeal. Mr. Keshav Rao Jadhav prays that
preferential allotment of land - particularly at basic rates - to MLAs,
MPs, journalists, officers of the AIS and Judges, is illegal, arbitrary
and unconstitutional, as it violates the right to equality guaranteed
under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Facts of the Case
5.
On 28.02.2005, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued three
GoMs - Nos. 242, 243 and 244. GoM No. 242 established a
comprehensive policy for managing land resources and housing in
urban and semi-urban areas. GoM No. 243 outlined categories of
individuals eligible for land allotment, while GoM No. 244 provided
guidelines for this process.
3
For short, "MLA".
4
For short, "AIS".
5
We note that while the Judges of the Supreme Court and High Court have withdrawn their claims and
are not seeking allotment, we have addressed their category for the purpose of tackling the legal issue
arising out of allotment made under GoM No. 243.
6
Refer to the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by this Court, giving directions for amendment in the Cause
Title.
1374
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
6.
GoM No. 242 emphasized the urgent need for prudent management
of land resources in urban and semi-urban areas due to rising
urbanization and increasing demand for housing. Due to growing
urbanisation, demand for land for housing purposes has surged.
It highlighted the challenges faced by the working middle class,
as private developers often artificially inflate land prices, making it
difficult for them to secure plots. Recognizing that providing shelter is
a top priority for the State, the Government had previously formulated
a housing scheme for the poor. However, there was no fixed policy
catering to "other deserving sections" of the society. Consequently,
the Government decided that a comprehensive policy was necessary,
leading to the issuance of GoM No. 242. Key stipulations of the
GoM include:
 •
Creation of a land bank, source-pooled for allotment to various
housing Cooperative Societies and other target groups.
 •
The source of the land bank would consist of land located in
and around 120 municipalities with clear titles.
 •
The land would be within a radius of 25 kilometres for Category
"A" municipalities, 15 kilometres for Category "B" municipalities
and 10 kilometres for Category "C" municipalities.
 •
Government land available with various departments which was
not being used for specified categories such as Horticulture,
Agriculture, Roads and Buildings amongst other categories,
was also to be subsumed and put in the land bank.
 •
Surplus ceiling land, endowment lands and private lands that
had been acquired were to also form a part of the land pool.
 •
Revenue department was responsible for collecting details
of large chunks of available land which would fall in the said
categories.
 •
The Collector and District Magistrate was nominated as the
Competent Authority for transfer of the government land to
the land bank in consultation with concerned government
departments.
 •
The Collector and District Magistrate would also be competent
to acquire private land for public purposes, after examining
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
1375
State of Andhra Pradesh and Others v.
Dr. Rao, V.B.J. Chelikani and Others
the demand and after consulting the agencies in-charge of
the land bank.
 •
Each category of land was to be treated as a distinct entity till
the same was alienated to the applicant. The objective was to
plough back the cost of land acquisition.
 •
The Empowered Committee chaired by the Chief Commissioner
of Land Administration and comprising five members was vested
with the power to decide allotment of the land, its apportionment
and its use, based upon the hierarchy of needs, and submit
proposals to the Government.
 •
 The designated officers who would be the members of the
Empowered Committee, while recommending allotment of land
in favour of the Cooperative Societies, would also recommend
the price to be fixed for the land proposed for allotment.
 •
The recommended price was to be fixed after taking into account
the acquisition cost of land, activity of the beneficiary institution
and demand for the land.
 •
Separate orders were to be issued on the methodology to be
adopted for selecting the housing society/institution for allotment
of land from the land bank; deciding conditions of allotment;
and ownership rights.
7.
On 28.02.2005, GoM No. 243 was also issued. It stated that land
from the land bank could be allotted for housing and institutional
purposes. For housing, the Government encouraged allocation of
land for independent housing sites in areas where such housing
schemes were prevalent, and for the construction of flats in regions
where flats were established. The key stipulations of the GoM are
outlined below:
 •
The Government might alienate lands, preferably for construction
of flats in view of land scarcity, in the Municipal Corporation
of Hyderabad, Warangal, Vijayawada, Guntur, Rajahmundry,
Visakhapatnam, Kurnool and Nellore.
 •
Land was not to be allotted to individual beneficiaries, but to
groups or Cooperative Societies of which the beneficiaries
would be members.
1376
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
 •
A Cooperative Society or group was to have a minimum of 12
eligible members.
 •
The applications for allotment of flat/housing site were to be
made to the Collector and District Magistrate, who in turn
had to obtain necessary approval for land allotment from the
Empowered Committee and the Government.
 •
The Collector was to be nominated as the Nodal Authority and
was tasked with the duty to make the Scheme operational.
 •
For allotment of the land to institutions, the Collector was to
submit the proposal to the Empowered Committee.
 •
The allotment for the Cooperative Societies comprising Judges,
MPs, MLAs, officers of the AIS, officers of the Andhra Pradesh
cadre, officers of other State cadres who were natives of
Andhra Pradesh and who had worked on deputation with the
Andhra Pradesh Government, officers of the Government of
Andhra Pradesh, and journalists, would be in satellite towns
of Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy districts.
 •
The lands located in prime locations would only be allotted to
government organisations for public purposes or for institutional
use.
 •
Government lands located in the proposed Outer Ring Road
would not be allotted for housing sites for group of individuals
or Cooperative Housing Societies.
 •
The Cooperative Society or group concerned which would be
allotted land by the Government, shall further allot individual
housing sites/flats to its individual members.
 •
Land would be allotted without any development, which had to
be undertaken by the Cooperative Society or group.
 •
Time limit fixed for the completion of development of land and
infrastructure facilities (road, water supply, electricity etc.) was
one year from the date of alienation of land, failing which the
land would be repossessed by the government.
 •
Cost and categorisation of sections of the society was prescribed
in the following manner:
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
1377
State of Andhra Pradesh and Others v.
Dr. Rao, V.B.J. Chelikani and Others
"CATEGORISATION FOR PRICING:
i)
MLAs, MPs, Judges of Supreme Court and High
Court, All India Services Officers.
ii)
Accredited Journalists from recognized and
registered newspapers.
iii)
State Government Employees and Panchayat
Raj Teachers working in the State of Andhra
Pradesh.
iv)
Recognised National and International Sports
persons and eminent persons in the field of
Culture and Arts.
v)
Defence Employees, Central Government
employees and employees of PSUs.
vi)
Widows of Kargil and other war heroes and
extremist violence who are hailing from Andhra
Pradesh.
vii) Weaker Sections.
viii) Institutions - Educational/Charitable/Religious
etc.,
The land shall be allotted to the categories figuring
at Sl. No. i to iv at the basic value of the land; for
category v and viii at prevailing market value; for
category vi on free of cost and for category vii as per
the policy of the Government in vogue. The acquired
land shall be alienated on cost basis, which means
that the actual cost paid to the landowners shall be
fixed as cost of land."
 •
The following conditions of allotment were laid down:

o
The Cooperative Society/group would ensure that its
members were seeking allotment of land for the first time.

o
All the members were to file an affidavit stating that they
had not received benefit of concessional allotment from
the government earlier, nor were they a member of any
Cooperative Society/group to which concessional allotment
had been made earlier.
1378
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports

o
The members would also give an undertaking that they
would not avail of such facility in the future.

o
Allotment process had to be completed within six months
from the date of alienation of land.

o
The allottee/beneficiary would have to complete the
development within a period of two years from the date
of allotment by the Cooperative Society/group.

o
The beneficiary/allottee would not have any right to sell
the property allotted for a period of 15 years.

o
The Cooperative Societies/groups were restricted from
allotting open spaces in the layout or making changes in
the layout without approval of the Competent Authority.

o
In satellite townships being developed by the urban
development agencies in Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy
districts, certain categories of persons, such as Class IV
Employees, NGOs etc., who may not be in a position make
an investment for buying a plot, would be considered for
allotment of housing sites at an appropriate rate.

o
However, the conditions for allotment in respect of
government employees would be issued separately.
 •
The Supreme Court and High Court Judges, MLAs, MPs, and
officers of AIS would be allotted plots of 500 square yards.
 •
Government employees would be allotted plots of 100-400
square yards.
 •
Journalists would be allotted plots of 300 square yards.
 •
The Cooperative Society/group would decide whether they
would like to build the houses themselves or would like to avail
assistance of Andhra Pradesh Housing Board.
8.
On 28.02.2005, GoM No. 244 was also issued, whose key stipulations
read:
 •
The Collector would be the Nodal Authority to make the scheme
operational and would be competent to allot the land to the
Cooperative Society or the group.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
1379
State of Andhra Pradesh and Others v.
Dr. Rao, V.B.J. Chelikani and Others
 •
The Collector would monitor implementation of the scheme very
closely and send a monthly progress report to the Government.
 •
The Government would alienate land to the Cooperative Society
or the group, which would in turn convey the title of the plot/flat
to the members through a registered sale deed.
 •
Following conditions of allotment were laid down:

o
The employee must be a member of the Cooperative
Society or the group.

o
To facilitate the Cooperative Society to arrive at an
estimation of the land required, they were advised to
complete the admission of its members before making an
application to the authorities.

o
Where some employees did not form part of an existing
society, they could form a separate Cooperative Society/
group and make a request for allotment.

o
The Cooperative Societies/groups would not allot housing
sites/flats to any other member whose name did not figure
in the application submitted to the Competent Authority.

o
The employee would have to be an approved probationer
in service of the Government or local body, who has
completed a minimum of five years in service.

o
Only one housing site/flat would be allotted to a particular
government servant.

o
If both the husband and wife were in government service,
they would be eligible for allotment of only one housing
site/flat.

o
The allotment of the housing site/flat was to be completed
within six months from the date of alienation of the land.

o
The allotment of house site/flat would be done by draw
of lots.

o
The Cooperative Societies/group would complete
construction on the allotted land within two years from
the date of allotment.
1380
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports

o
Construction would be done directly or through the Housing
Board or through any other agency as mutually agreed
upon by the members.

o
The employee who was once allotted a housing site/flat
would not be permitted to sell the same for a period of
15 years.

o
The society would not allot open spaces indicated in the
layout or change the layout without the approval of the
Competent Authority.

o
The allotment of housing site/flat would be recorded in the
service book of the employee.

o
The employee would be entitled for concessional allotment
of land only once during the period of service.

o
Members of the Cooperative Society would have to file an
affidavit stating that they had not received the benefit of
concessional allotment earlier, nor were they a member
of a society to which concessional allotment of land had
been made earlier.

o
All members would have to furnish an undertaking stating
that they would not avail of such facilities in the future.

o
Indian Administrative Service,7 Indian Police Service,8
and Indian Foreign Service9 officers belonging to Andhra
Pradesh cadre would be entitled to a plot size of 500
square yards.

o
Non-cadre Head of Departments, Fourth Level Gazetted
Officers and above were entitled to a plot size of 400
square yards.

o
Second and Third Level Gazetted Officers were entitled
to a plot size of 300 square yards.

o
First Level Gazetted Officers were entitled to a plot size
of 250 square yards.
7
For short, "IAS".
8
For short, "IPS".
9
For short, "IFS".
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
1381
State of Andhra Pradesh and Others v.
Dr. Rao, V.B.J. Chelikani and Others

o
Superintendents, Assistant Section Officers, Senior
Assistants, Telephone Operators, LD Stenos, TCAs, Junior
Assistants, etc. and persons holding equivalent posts were
entitled to a plot size of 175 square yards.

o
Attenders, Record Assistants, drivers, etc., and persons
holding equivalent posts were entitled to plot size of 100
square yards.

o
In case sufficient land was not available, Category 1
officers, namely, those belonging to IAS, IPS and IFS were
to retain the mentioned plot size of 500 square yards, but
there would be a reduction of plot size in terms of ratio of
4 : 3 : 2.5 : 1.75 : 1 for Categories 2 to 5.
9.
Thereafter, on 04.05.2006, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued
GoM No. 522. The GoM stated that based upon representations
from various individuals or groups i.e., Judges of the High Court,
MLAs, MPs, officers of the AIS, people of eminence and journalists,
the Collector of Ranga Reddy District had proposed allotment of
government land for housing purpose on payment of basic value
through the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad.
The Government, after careful examination of the proposal, had
directed allotment of government land to the extent of 245 acres
in villages of Ranga Reddy District in favour of Judges of the
High Court, MLAs, MPs, serving left over officers of pre-1989 AIS
batches, AIS officers serving since 1989, serving AIS officers of
other cadre with Andhra Pradesh nativity, people of eminence and
working journalists, as a one-time benefit as per their eligibility.
The allotment was made in relaxation of the order issued in GoM
No. 243 dated 28.02.2005, subject to the guidelines and filing of
affidavit proforma 1 and 2 appended to the order. The stipulations
of the GoM were:-
 •
72 acres of land was to be allotted in Survey No. 276 of
Puppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal to the MLAs and
MPs.
 •
38 acres of land was to be allotted in Survey No. 149 of
Nanakramguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal in favour of
Judges, people of eminence, and serving left over officers of
pre-1989 AIS batches.
1382
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
 •
32 acres of land was to be allotted in Survey No. 454/1 of
Puppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal in favour of serving
post-1989 AIS officers and serving AIS officers of other cadre
with Andhra Pradesh nativity who are working or had worked
on deputation in Andhra Pradesh.
 •
33 acres of land was to be allotted in Survey No. 132 of
Vattinagulapalli Village to AIS officers serving post 1989, in the
order of seniority.
 •
32 acres of land was to be allotted in Survey No. 332 of Nizampet
Village and 38 acres of land was to be allotted in Survey No.
35/2 of Pet Basheerabad Village to media persons.
 •
Judges of the High Court, MPs, MLAs, serving AIS officers and
persons of eminence were to be allotted plots of 500 square
yards.
 •
Former members of the Legislative Assembly, their widows and
working journalists were to be allotted plots of 300 square yards.
 •
The land was to be allotted to Hyderabad Urban Development
Authority,10 which in turn would develop layouts in the five
blocks at the respective locations for allotment of housing sites
to individuals.
 •
Advance possession of the land would be given to HUDA.
 •
HUDA will commence work from its own reserves. Each allottee
would reimburse the said amount to HUDA as per the time
schedule fixed.
 •
Format of the townships was to be based on the gated community
concept.
 •
Appendix to the GoM stated that the allotment to the members
of Legislature, Judiciary, Executive and the press was a one-time
beneficial measure, irrespective of any other private ownership
of land, to ensure equity and to avoid discrimination.
 •
The appendix laid down the details including approximate
number of housing sites etc. with stipulation regarding the size
of the plots which would be allotted.
10
For short, "HUDA".
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
1383
State of Andhra Pradesh and Others v.
Dr. Rao, V.B.J. Chelikani and Others
 •
The general conditions of eligibility read:

o
Members of the categories listed at serial no. 3 to 6 under
item 1, i.e. Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
AIS officers, persons of eminence and journalists, should
not have availed any benefit of allotment of land in the
cities of Hyderabad, Secunderabad, and Ranga Reddy
district or any other district.

o
All the sitting MLAs and MPs were to be given a plot,
provided they did not have a house or housing site in
Hyderabad or Secunderabad.

o
All eligible persons who were being allotted the land
would have to file an affidavit agreeing to the conditions
and stipulations.

o
No person who was allotted a plot shall alienate or transfer
it using the instrument of General Power of Attorney11 within
a period of 10 years from the date of allotment.
 •
Committees and sub-committees were formed to process
allotment applications.
 •
Government would allot land to HUDA at the basic rate, and
as already noted above, HUDA would develop layouts in the
five blocks at the respective locations.
 •
The allottees were to pay the actual cost of the plot, i.e., the
basic value plus cost of development, as worked out by HUDA,
in three equal instalments, within six months from the date of
allotment.
 •
The plot will not be handed over and registered till full payment
is made by the allottee to HUDA.
 •
In case of default, the Screening Committee could recommend
the Government to delete such names from the list.
 •
Construction of houses was to commence within a period of two
years from the date of handing over the plot to the individual
allottee.
11
For short, "GPA".
1384
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
10. GoM No. 522 dated 04.05.2006, was challenged by Mr. V.S. Bose,
Dr. Rao V.B.J. Chelikani and Mr. O.M. Debara in the High Court in
Writ Petition No. 13730 of 2006. It was submitted that:
 •
Land worth Rs. 700 crores was sought to be allotted to the
specified categories at a throw-away price compared to the
market value.
 •
The government, as a trustee of the public land, cannot dispose
of land except by way of a policy which was consistent with
Articles 14, 38 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India.
 •
Majority of the beneficiaries were affluent persons with good
social standing.
 •
Land prices have escalated substantially and hence, land
allotment at basic value without auction was detrimental to
public interest.
 •
There was no rational basis or object which was sought to be
achieved through such a land allotment policy.
 •
Lastly, there was no justification for allotting the land to preferred
individuals at a fraction of the market value.
 •
GoM No. 243 had completely prohibited allotment of land to
individuals who had already received benefit of concessional
allotment from the Government. This requirement was deleted/
removed through GoM No. 522. The policy also permitted
allotment of land to those who own or possess land in their own
name or in the name of their spouse or children. Reference
was made to the amendment made vide GoM No. 1424 dated
28.09.2006.
11. The Writ Petition was allowed by judgment dated 08.10.2007. At
the outset, we must notice that the judgment of the Division Bench
specifically recorded that the petitioners therein had not questioned
the vires of GoM Nos. 242, 243 and 244, which established the
policy, categories, and guidelines for land allocation. Therefore, the
validity of these GoMs was not examined. The focus of the Writ
Petition concerning GoM No. 522 was the relaxation of conditions
which had been prescribed in the earlier GoMs.
12. The High Court referred to Rules 3 and 10 of the Andhra Pradesh
(Telangana Area) Alienation of State Lands & Land Revenue
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
1385
State of Andhra Pradesh and Others v.
Dr. Rao, V.B.J. Chelikani and Others
Rules, 1975,12 which pertain to the alienation of land to local
authorities. The Court recorded that according to the 1975 Rules,
land acquired by the State could be alienated to a local body/
authority for unremunerative public purposes without charging a
price. However, when the land was to be allocated for remunerative
public purposes or to private entities, it could only be done at
market value. Rule 10 allows the Government to deviate from the
established procedures. However, any such deviation must follow
a reasonable process for land alienation, including auction, where
such alienation/sale is deemed necessary.
13. The Court noted that a reading of GoM No. 522 made it clear that it
relaxed the conditions of GoM No. 243, with the intent of providing
undue benefits to individuals who would not otherwise qualify for
land allotment under GoM No. 243.