The lack of criteria and guidelines governing allotment of land and buildings/flats under the BDA, CDA and OSHB was first pointed out by the Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG) of India. The CAG had also observed that the allotments of land by the General Administration Department in Bhubaneswar were not guided by any rational principle or criteria. These observations led to the appointment of a Taskforce, whose report does not cover the exercise of power of allotment of land in Bhubaneswar by the General Administration Department.
The recommendations of the Taskforce that have been accepted by the Council of Ministers of the State Government are all in generalised terms. They are sweeping in nature without any appropriate examination of the modalities that should be adopted for implementation of the generalised directives. Take for example a decision that reads, “All allotments of plots/houses/flats under discretionary quota by the BDA, CDA and OSHB after 01.01.1995, including their pre- and post-position transfers be cancelled and the plots/houses/flats are resumed to the concerned authorities.”
The “discretionary quota (DQ)” was not a creation of the applicants for the plots/houses/flats. Such a quota was the creation of the persons in authority/power at the relevant points of time. Every public power is coupled with a public duty. It is also well-settled in law that there is nothing called “unfettered discretion” in the domain of public law. But those who are vested with such public power did not want any fetters on them. They were infected with feudal orientation, and as persons in power, they wanted to dispense favours through the exercise of their unregulated and unguided power. There is no decision from the Council of Ministers to ensure that such wanton abuse of power is not permitted to be repeated, and we learn the lessons from the no-so-becoming experiences.
The Taskforce report and decisions thereon do not want the indiscretions of the persons in authority at the relevant periods to be subjected to any evaluation or resultant condemnation. Putting the blame entirely on the recipient beneficiary is not the effective solution to the maladies that flourished on account of persons in power attempting to utilise the power vested in them in feudalistic manner in a professed democracy.
Sadly enough, the Government still does not find it desirable and necessary to lay down a standard criterion to be followed by itself or by the Development Authorities, Housing Boards and such other organisations. This is a strange phenomenon as the root cause of the malady is permitted to continue. No doubt, the so-called discretionary quota stood abolished when there was an expose relating to high-level indiscretions. Abolition of discretionary quota is not a solution by itself in the absence of a general criterion of allotment regulating the power of the concerned authorities. The root cause has, thus, been left without any remedial measures. The resultant situation will lead to churning the past, chasing backwards and making the author of the wrong deeds go scot free. Absence of an objective criteria-based policy has and would further harm the future urban growth of Bhubaneswar and Cuttack. Knee-jerk and sporadic reactions, without appropriate attention to rectify the systemic maladies, will add to the complications and would undoubtedly lead to a plethora of litigations.
One is at a loss to understand the reasons that prevent a Government from laying down principles and criteria of allotment and, thereby, prevent future abuse of the entrusted power. The exercise seems to be partly misdirected till it does not result in the Government laying down the objective criteria and guidelines for allotment. It is also utterly necessary to lay down an appropriate procedure to remedy the discretions hitherto undertaken in an improper manner. Absence of this essential requirement is likely to provide a bonanza to the legal fraternity. No steps are going to suitably remedy the past, while appropriately providing for the future. We are back at the crossroads, directionless and without any policy governing the field. Churning the past may bring out some “Amrit”, but we will be left without a solution to the maladies that have been a creation of the Governmental machinery.
One of the other reasons for such maladies has been the oft-practised secrecy and non-transparency in regard to such matters, which inter alia involve dispensation of State largesse. A simple question could possibly provide the proper answer: How many times has the General Administration Department advertised the availability of the number of plots along with their size, cost, etc., and invite applications for them on the basis of a preannounced criterion and guidelineIJ The reason for leaving out the land allotment in Bhubaneswar by the General Administration Department from the inquestorial study seems to be strategic. All such allotments are ordinarily finalised with the approval of the higher political executive.
The time has come to squarely face the problem and not shy away from it. History shall not speak well of us if we do not fairly remedy the past actions while controlling and regulating the future ones in conformity with the tenets of rule of law. Such an exercise would subserve a great public interest. It has to be appreciated that conversion of public assets into private property demands appropriate caution, care and concern. The present steps that are making headlines are of no remedies to assure a better future. And this concerns us all!
(The writer, a Senior Advocate, is a former All India Service officer, a former diplomat, a former editor, a former President of Orissa High Court Bar Association and a former Advocate General of Odisha. jayantdas@hotmail.com)