SUPREME COURT DECLINES REVIEW OF 2024 RULING CANCELLING HYDERABAD LAND ALLOTMENTS TO MPS, MLAS, JUDGES, JOURNALISTS, AND IAS OFFICERS:

The Supreme Court has dismissed review petitions challenging its November 2024 judgment which struck down preferential allotment of lands within the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation limits to housing societies formed by Members of Parliament, Members of the Legislative Assembly, civil servants, judges, defence personnel, journalists, and others. The review petitions came up before a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih, which, after hearing extensive submissions from several senior advocates, concluded that no grounds existed to reconsider the earlier decision.

During the proceedings, senior advocates including CS Vaidyanathan, Anitha Shenoy, Mukul Rohatgi, Siddharth Luthra, Atmaram Nadkarni, Bikashranjan Bhattacharya, Jaideep Gupta, and Dama Seshadri Naidu appeared for the review-petitioners, while Senior Advocate Raghenth Basant represented the respondents. Counsel for the petitioners pleaded that the Court should show leniency on the basis of equity, pointing out that the allotments had been made in 2008 and that constructions had since been undertaken. They argued that in 2025, many beneficiaries had no alternative housing and were willing to pay market rates as determined by the Court to regularise the allotments.

One of the primary legal propositions raised was whether specific categories such as MPs, MLAs, IAS officers, and others could be created separately for the purpose of housing. Petitioners contended that these groups already enjoy substantial privileges during service and it would not be appropriate to argue that when it comes to housing, they must be treated differently from the general public. Specific arguments were advanced on behalf of journalists, who were said not to constitute a privileged class. Their salaries, often ranging between Rs. 8,000 and Rs. 30,000, and the absence of pensionary benefits, were contrasted with MPs, MLAs, and senior officers who receive significantly higher pay, allowances, and retirement benefits. It was urged that journalists, as the fourth pillar of democracy, required protection to ensure they could perform their duties without insecurity. Counsel submitted that treating journalists at par with legislators and senior officials amounted to treating unequals as equals, and the state should be allowed to assess each journalist’s case individually.

The bench, however, was unconvinced by these submissions. Justice Datta, delivering the order, stated that no case for review had been made out and the petitions were dismissed.

The controversy dates back to November 2024, when a bench of then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta quashed the Andhra Pradesh Government Orders of 2005 and 2008, which had classified MPs, MLAs, judges, IAS and state officers, and journalists as a special category eligible for land at concessional rates. The Court held that the policy violated Article 14 of the Constitution, as it was unreasonable, arbitrary, and promoted inequality. The judgment emphasised that the preferential allotment scheme was an abuse of power, designed to benefit a few elite groups at the expense of ordinary citizens. It observed that such an approach was irrational, undermined equality, and eroded the constitutional principles of fraternity and solidarity.

The Court also held that journalists could not be carved out as a distinct class for such preferential treatment. It ordered restitution by directing that cooperative societies and their members be refunded the amounts deposited, including stamp duty and registration charges, along with interest. Lease deeds executed by the state in their favour were declared cancelled, and development charges or expenses paid by them were also directed to be refunded with interest, as certified by the relevant accounts and income tax records.

Aggrieved by this decision, beneficiaries had approached the Court through review petitions, but the dismissal today confirms the Supreme Court’s earlier finding that the allotment policy was unconstitutional and violative of the right to equality.