TRYSTS AND TURNS: Setting the cat among the pigeons

THE Maharashtra Government had always treated its officials of the All-India Services — the IAS and the IPS — with kindness and consideration. When officers were about to retire, the government would allot state-owned pieces of land to a group of officers on a 99-year lease. The officers would then form a cooperative housing society and construct a building with 14 to 20 flats or more on that piece of land, according to its size.

When the housing societies were formed, none of the officers who stood to gain from a benevolent government’s largesse had any vision of an exorbitant profit.

In my housing society, for instance, 20 IPS officers came together and each spent a shade above Rs 3 lakh to get a building of ‘ground plus 10 floors’ constructed, two flats per floor. The carpet area of each 3 BHK flat is 1,070 sq ft, as per the government’s rules. The society pays lease rent to the government every year, along with house taxes to the Bombay Municipal Corporation.

All societies are registered with the Registrar of Cooperative Housing Societies. Each society has an elected chairman, a secretary and five to eight committee members, according to the number of members. The managing committee is mandated by the housing society rules to meet every month to sort out common concerns.

Since the societies are on government leasehold land, they have to report to the Collector of Mumbai and obtain his/her sanction for any sale of flats or succession rights in case of the death of an owner. A flat owner could rent out his/her flat only to the government, which would allot the tenancy to one of its own officials at a nominal rent, the money being credited to the flat owner’s bank account.

Soon, MLAs also demanded similar benefits and were allotted land on leasehold by the government. They disregarded laid-down conditions, and cases of selling or renting flats without the permission of the Collector were reported. The government found it difficult to discipline politicians. Instead, it relaxed the rules for all, permitting the sale and renting out to those who were not government employees (but who could afford to pay market rates). That step was the precursor to establishing commerce in flats built on government land on leasehold terms.

The present BJP-mentored government has gone a step further. It decided to monetise the entire system by first floating a rumour that leasehold land would be offered for conversion to freehold to societies at the nominal rate of 5 per cent of the rated value of the land. This leak set the cat among the pigeons.

When Devendra Fadnavis, the BJP’s pointsman in Maharashtra and also the Deputy Chief Minister, made a public statement on the policy while addressing a gathering of cooperative housing societies, flat owners anxiously started awaiting the government resolution.

When at last the government resolution was published, there was the inevitable setback to lofty expectations — 5 per cent of the rated value of the land was announced, but that was tied up with relinquishing 25 per cent of the increased FSI (floor space index) to the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, which meant that the existing flat owners — all retired service officers — would have to accommodate new owners chosen by the government. That would spell trouble in the internal administration of the housing societies. Differences in opinion between existing members would increase exponentially, making it difficult for managing committees to take decisions.

Recently, office-bearers of some societies formed by retired IAS/IPS officers met the Collector and came away with the notion that the government was prepared to remove the ‘redevelopment clause’ for the 10 per cent payment if the money was deposited by November 15, 2024. Many societies have turned down even this alternative because some members were unable to muster their required share of money. The problem arises in the case of societies whose majority flat owners want to convert to freehold but a small minority refuses to go along. There is no legal or moral ground to dismember them. In fact, any such step would be ethically reprehensible.

The principle of the majority vote on an issue that was not envisaged when the societies were originally formed is well-nigh impossible to apply. The government land was given to IAS/IPS officers for the specific purpose of living in conditions in which they were accustomed to while in service so that their dignity was maintained and the temptation to resort to corrupt practices while in service was hopefully discouraged.

When the housing societies were formed, none of the officers who stood to gain from a benevolent government’s largesse had any vision of an exorbitant profit. Even a 99-year lease would take care of the retirees and two or even three generations of their descendants! By dangling this new carrot in front of society members and their children as well as grandchildren, the present government has created a point of friction which did not exist earlier. Old friendships have come under attack since friends find themselves on rival sides.

In every society of AIS officers, there now are three categories of members — those who are fiercely eager to take advantage of the dangling carrot; those who are content with what the previous government had given them; and those who sit on the proverbial fence and will accept the final decision.

Where do I stand? Of one thing I am very, very clear. As long as I live, I want to spend my last few months and days in the building in which my friends live. It is a perfectly sustainable building which can accommodate 20 residents for another 20 years, if not more. I will oppose the redevelopment of a good building, a step introduced by the present rulers with the obvious intent of patronising the builders’ lobby.