Mumbai, India – After years of intense scrutiny and legal battles, a special court in Mumbai has brought to a close the criminal proceedings in the high-profile Rs 30,000 crore Powai Area Development Scheme (PADS) alleged land scam. The ruling, delivered on Monday, sees developer Niranjan Hiranandani and others cleared of charges, a decision that underscores the complexities of land development and public-private partnerships in India’s booming urban centers.
Special Judge Shashikant Eknathrao Bangar, in a comprehensive 119-page order, asserted that the prosecution of the accused would not align with the principles of justice, stating there was no “prima facie” case – meaning insufficient evidence to proceed. This judgment was based on a closure report submitted by the state Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), which found no substantiating evidence of corruption, dishonest intent, monetary gratification, or criminal conspiracy.
The core of the allegations revolved around the contentious diversion of prime public land. This land was originally designated for affordable housing at concessional rates but was allegedly utilized by private developers, most notably the Hiranandani group, for the construction of high-end luxury residences and commercial establishments. Such instances often spark public outcry in a nation grappling with a significant affordable housing deficit, where public land is a critical resource for housing the masses.
The saga commenced in 2012 following a plea by activist Santosh Daundkar, which prompted a court-ordered investigation into the alleged irregularities. The ACB subsequently registered a First Information Report (FIR) against Hiranandani and senior urban development department official Thomas Benjamin, among others, under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code.
Despite the initial FIR, the ACB moved to close the case in 2013, citing insufficient evidence. This move was met with strong opposition from Daundkar, who continued to pursue the matter. The ACB’s initial closure report faced rejection by the court in January 2018, leading to a directive for further investigation and the submission of a second closure report in August 2019.
Daundkar, however, did not cease his efforts, challenging the subsequent closure report. He alleged a “mala fide” transfer of the investigating officer and asserted that the final report was a result of administrative interference and the suppression of crucial evidence. The activist contended that the report disproportionately relied on civil Public Interest Litigation (PIL) orders from the High Court, neglecting critical criminal aspects, and sought a fresh probe by an independent agency.
The ACB, through public prosecutor Ramesh Siroya, countered these claims, stating that Daundkar’s allegations lacked documentary evidence or witness corroboration. The Bureau also highlighted that Daundkar himself was neither a resident, investor, nor an owner of commercial premises within the development. The judge, in his ruling, ultimately rejected Daundkar’s plea, noting that the allegations he raised had already been thoroughly considered in previous PILs, and no new substantive material was presented to warrant reopening the criminal proceedings.
A significant factor in the court’s decision was the retrospective regularization of the sale of larger flats and their amalgamation. Although these actions initially deviated from the original 1986 agreement between the state, the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), and the developer for the 232-acre plot, they were later legitimized through high court hearings on various PILs.
The court also took into account the findings of a three-member joint committee constituted by the High Court in 2016 and 2017 to verify compliance with the project’s terms. This committee confirmed that out of 2,200 flats earmarked at 80 square meters, 1,337 had been constructed, with 12 locked units and 887 remaining to be completed as per the plan.
Judge Bangar concluded that directives for the completion of the remaining flats are now under ongoing court supervision, thereby negating the necessity for separate criminal proceedings. He emphasized that the ACB had rightly determined that no prosecutable offense remained, with no evidence presented to indicate abuse of public office or conspiracy, affirming the probe as a “fair” one. The court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing development interests with public welfare, often navigating complex agreements and allegations in India’s rapidly urbanizing landscape.
