Supreme Court Directs Land Allotment to Municipal Corporation for Primary School: Jawed Urdu Primary School vs. Collector of Mumbai (2019)

Date of the Judgment: April 9, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 321

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., M. R. Shah, J.

Can a government body allot land to a private entity without following proper procedures? The Supreme Court of India tackled this question in a case involving a land reserved for a primary school in Mumbai. The Court examined the claims of two private entities and ultimately decided that neither was eligible for the land. Instead, it directed the land to be allotted to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation. This decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to established procedures in land allotments and prioritizing public interest. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice M. R. Shah, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around a plot of land in Mumbai reserved for a primary school. The Jawed Urdu Primary School Trust (appellant) and the Nasheman Welfare and Educational Society (respondent No. 4) both sought allotment of this land.

The Jawed Urdu Primary School Trust, established on February 28, 2000, began operating an Urdu medium secondary school in March 2001 in rented premises. Due to increasing student numbers, the Trust applied on July 25, 2001, to the Collector of Greater Mumbai for the land, specifically mentioning it was reserved for a primary school. The Collector forwarded this request for inspection. Subsequently, on April 2, 2002, the Trust again applied for the land, submitting the application in Proforma-A.

Meanwhile, the Nasheman Welfare and Educational Society, formed in December 1999, also sought the land. The Trust learned that the Society was being considered for allotment, despite not being involved in any educational activities, and its aims not including operating a primary school.

The Trust filed a writ petition in February 2004 before the High Court of Bombay, challenging the potential allotment to the Society. The High Court quashed the initial allotment to the Society on June 24, 2004, and remanded the matter to the Minister of Revenue for fresh consideration of both claims.

On June 1, 2005, the Chief Minister and Revenue Minister ordered the land to be allotted to the Society, reasoning that the Trust already had a school, while the Society proposed to establish a new one.

Aggrieved, the Trust filed another writ petition, which the High Court dismissed on September 29, 2005, stating that the Trust never explicitly applied for a primary school, while the Society did.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case is primarily governed by the following:

• Section 40 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, which deals with the disposal of government land.
• Rules 5 and 6 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Lands) Rules, 1971, which outline the procedures for allotting government land.

These provisions ensure that government land is disposed of in a fair and transparent manner, adhering to established procedures and policies.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides are as follows:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was right in holding that the appellants were not entitled to the allotment of the land in question?
2. Whether the allotment of land in favour of respondent No. 4 was legal and valid?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Procedural Compliance: The Court emphasized that neither the appellant nor respondent No. 4 had followed the prescribed procedures for land allotment.
• Public Interest: The Court prioritized the larger public interest, noting the need for a primary school in the locality and the willingness of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation to establish one.
• Arbitrariness: The Court found that the allotment to respondent No. 4 was arbitrary and not based on a proper application.
• Lack of Specific Application: The Court noted that neither party had made an application specifically for a primary school in the required format.

The Court considered the arguments of both parties but ultimately found that neither had a valid claim to the land. The Court emphasized the importance of following proper procedures and prioritizing public interest.

The Court stated, “Therefore, considering the entire material on record and the circumstances narrated hereinabove, even respondent No. 4 was not eligible and/or entitled to the allotment of the land in question, as they also never applied for allotment of the land in question specifically for establishing the primary school and, that too, in Proforma-A.”

The Court also noted, “Under the circumstances, the allotment of land in question in favour of respondent No. 4 also cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court even in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India…”

The Court further observed, “As stated by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3-Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation at the bar that if neither the appellant-Trust nor respondent No. 4 are allotted the land in question, considering the growing population and the need of the primary school in the locality, respondent No. 3-Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation is ready and willing to take the land in question and establish a primary school in the locality.”

Key Takeaways

• Land allotments must strictly adhere to prescribed procedures and formats.
• Government bodies must prioritize public interest when allocating land, especially for essential services like schools.
• Simple representations to ministers without proper applications are not sufficient for land allotment.
• The Court can exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to rectify illegal and arbitrary allotments.
• Municipal corporations can be considered for land allotments if private entities do not meet the criteria.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The High Court’s decision that the appellants were not entitled to the land was confirmed.
• The order allotting the land to respondent No. 4 was quashed.
• Neither the appellants nor respondent No. 4 were entitled to the land.
• The land was to be allotted to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation to establish a primary school, following all procedural requirements.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that land allotments must be done strictly according to the prescribed procedures, and the public interest must be prioritized. The case clarifies that mere representations to ministers are not sufficient for land allotment, and that the courts can intervene to rectify illegal and arbitrary allotments. This case reinforces the importance of transparency and adherence to rules in government land allocations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by confirming the High Court’s decision that the Jawed Urdu Primary School Trust was not entitled to the land. However, the Court also quashed the allotment of the land to the Nasheman Welfare and Educational Society, finding it illegal and arbitrary. The Court directed that the land be allotted to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation to establish a primary school, emphasizing the importance of following proper procedures and prioritizing public interest in land allotments.