Mumbai court accepts closure report in Powai land development case

The order, passed by Special Judge SE Bangar for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, effectively closes the case against Niranjan Hiranandani, the co-founder and MD of Hiranandani Group.

In a relief to developer Niranjan Hiranandani, a court has accepted the ACB’s closure report in an alleged Rs 30,000 crore land scam in Mumbai’s Powai area, holding that “no criminal offence warranting prosecution is made out”.

The order of June 2, passed by Special Judge S E Bangar for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, effectively closes the case against Niranjan Hiranandani, the co-founder and managing director of the Hiranandani Group, and others.

“Closure reports are based on cogent investigation, verified compliance, and supported by judicial orders of the constitutional court,” said the order, a copy of which was made available on Wednesday.

The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) had registered an FIR in 2012, alleging that the Powai Area Development Scheme (PADS), which was intended for affordable housing, was misused to construct luxury apartments.

ACB claimed that Lake View Developers, an entity of the Hiranandani Group, in collaboration with the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) and Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), misused PADS.

The move caused a loss (of Rs 30,000 crore) to the public exchequer and violated statutory obligations under the Tripartite Agreement dated November 19, 1986, the probe agency had alleged.

The special court in 2018 had rejected the agency’s “A” Summary report and instead directed further investigation into the matter.

Following reinvestigation, the ACB filed a “C” Summary report on August 30, 2019, recommending closure of the case. It said no evidence of criminality was found against Hiranandani or the public authorities named in the case.

Police’s A Summary report indicates a case is true, but the accused or evidence is yet to be found, while a C Summary report is filed wherein the matter is found to be “neither true nor false” Santosh Daundkar, the complainant in the alleged PADS land scam, had filed a protest petition, seeking rejection of the closure report.

Daundkar alleged bias in the transfer of the investigating officer, who he claimed was purportedly in the process of filing a chargesheet.

He called the closure report a “result of administrative interference and suppression of crucial material”. Daundkar also submitted that officials failed in their duty to “prevent misuse of government land and monitor the PADS implementation”.

However, the special judge noted that the protest petition “lacks merit in view of the binding adjudication by the Bombay High Court”.

He held that the allegations concerning breach of affordable housing obligations, amalgamation of flats, and sale of flats were conclusively examined and remedied by a division bench of the Bombay HC.

Judge Bangar noted that the HC had constituted a three-member joint committee to verify compliance. It had accepted the committee reports in 2016 and 2017, which confirmed that out of 2,200 flats of 80 square metres (each), 1,337 flats were constructed, 12 locked, and 887 remained to be completed as per the plan and timeline.

“The directions for completion of the remaining flats were passed with monitoring provisions, and any further breach or noncompliance was made subject to the court’s ongoing supervision, obviating the need for separate criminal proceedings,” the order said, citing the HC ruling.

The special court stressed that in view of the accepted compliance framework and “absence of criminal intent proven during investigation, the ACB rightly concluded that no prosecutable offence remained”.

“There was no material to show abuse of public office or conspiracy by the public authorities or developers that survived the high court’s scrutiny,” it said, holding that ACB has rightly concluded that “no criminal offence warranting prosecution is made out”.