3 days ago
Legal battle ends in Hiranandani Gardens case
MUMBAI: The curtain has come down on the legal battle over alleged corruption in the development of Hiranandani Gardens, the landmark township built by Lake View Developers of the Hiranandani Group in Powai. The case revolved around the allegation that the developer had used 233 acres of government land earmarked for affordable housing to build luxury apartments and sold them at a premium.
A special court trying cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act on Monday accepted the second closure report submitted by the Maharashtra Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), which stated that there was no criminality involved in the implementation of the Powai Area Development Scheme (PADS), also called 'Hiranandani Gardens'.
The verdict brings relief to developer Niranjan Hiranandani, former urban development department secretary TC Benjamin and others who were named as accused in the case.
'In my opinion, this is not a fit case to proceed against the accused persons and I am inclined to accept the closure report for the reasons mentioned herein above,' said Judge Shashikant Bangar of the special court while accepting the second closure report filed by the ACB.
The special court had rejected the ACB's first closure report filed in 2018, and ordered a further investigation. While accepting the second closure report on Monday, the court noted that none of the allegations levelled by the complainant against the developer and others had been proved to be true by the investigation.
The First Information Report (FIR) was filed in 2012 on a complaint by activist Santosh Daundkar, who alleged that Hiranandani had colluded with Benjamin and officials of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) and the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to build luxury housing on government land earmarked for affordable houses.
The project, called the Powai Area Development Scheme (PADS), goes back to 1986, when the state had handed over 233 acres on an 80-year lease at a rate of 40 paise per acre, in return for constructing affordable housing. Daundkar alleged that Hiranandani had violated the agreement by building a posh residential complex. He also alleged that the builder had failed to hand over 15% of the developed flats to the state government, in accordance with the agreement.
The ACB filed its second closure report on August 30, 2019, which means the investigation had concluded and no offence was made out against the accused. They had neither engaged in any illegal activities or fraud in PADS, nor had the developer violated the tripartite agreement or gained any illegal profit, nor had the government suffered any loss, the report stated.
The court observed that the ACB had twice investigated the case, adding that 'it is clear that the said investigating officers have taken all relevant records, papers, documents from MMRDA and other authorities and they have collected all the relevant witness statements of the officials'.
The special court said that based on orders passed by the high court, the developer had built 1,511 flats of 40sq m and 887 flats of 80sq m each, and handed over possession of 256 flats to MMRDA in 2022. 'The investigation has been carried out fairly, and as per the directions of this court,' said Special Judge Shashikant Bangar.
After the ACB filed its second closure report, Daundkar had filed a protest petition, alleging that the investigating officer Pramod Bhosale, who was in the process of filing a charge sheet, was transferred midway. This amounted to administrative interference and resulted in suppression of crucial material.
He alleged that the officials failed to prevent the misuse of government land and monitor the PADS implementation. However, the special court said, 'The protest petition lacks merit in view of the binding adjudication by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay.'
The court, however, said the dispute is purely civil in nature. 'There is no alleged breach of terms of the tripartite agreement, any other irregularities and illegal acts found to be committed by the accused/respondents. The investigating officer found that there are no sufficient and concrete grounds to proceed against the accused/respondent persons to file a charge sheet against the said accused persons,' the court added.
The high court in 2016 and 2017 had accepted the reports that of 2,200 flats of 80sq m, 1,337 flats were constructed, 12 were locked, and 887 remained to be completed, as per the plan and timeline. 'In view of the accepted compliance framework and absence of mens rea or criminal intent proven during investigation, the ACB rightly concluded that no prosecutable offence remained.' The court held that there was no material to show abuse of public office or conspiracy by the public authorities or developers.
