STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS versus DR. RAO, V.B.J. CHELIKANI AND OTHERS

Citation: [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1366 · Decided: 25-11-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJIV KHANNA, DIPANKAR DATTA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 25 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[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 socio-
economically 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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.