A special court under the Prevention of Corruption Act has dismissed a private complaint alleging that a MHADA plot in Bandra East was fraudulently diverted for a slum redevelopment project, causing a loss of Rs 50,000 crore to the government, holding that the allegations did not disclose a prima facie corruption offence under the law.
Court Says Allegations Pointed to IPC Offences
The complaint had been filed by Mohd Rafique Sayyed and a proposed cooperative housing society. It alleged that MHADA land in Bharat Nagar, Bandra East, had been passed off as a censused slum through fabricated records and false certifications to facilitate a slum redevelopment project involving Housing Development and Infrastructure Limited and other entities.
The complainants also claimed that the Anti Corruption Bureau had earlier registered an FIR regarding the alleged fraud. The promoters of HDIL, Rakesh Kumar Wadhawan and Sarang Wadhawan, were already under investigation in several redevelopment and financial fraud matters, including the PMC Bank scam and the Patra Chawl redevelopment case.
Special Judge Shayana Patil noted that the complaint alleged that the then Chief Officer of the Mumbai Housing Board had issued a false certificate declaring around 23,387.80 square metres of MHADA land as a censused slum, although information obtained under the Right to Information Act reportedly showed that no such record existed with the housing authority.
FCRF’s Flagship Cyber Law Certification Returns With a New Four-Week Cohort
No Prima Facie Corruption Offence Found
The court, however, held that even if the allegations were taken at face value, they primarily pointed towards possible offences such as forgery, fabrication of documents and cheating under the Indian Penal Code rather than corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The complaint further alleged that records used to establish slum dweller eligibility for the redevelopment project, including annexure II documents, photopasses and ration cards, were false and fabricated. But the court said such contentions would fall within the scope of offences related to forgery, fabrication of documents and cheating, rather than offences under the anti corruption law.
The judge also observed that the complaint contained no specific allegation of bribery, illegal gratification or pecuniary gain by public servants. According to the order, the complainants had failed to show that any accused had obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage through corrupt or illegal means or by abuse of official position.
Delay and Civil Nature of Dispute Noted
The court took note of the fact that the Anti Corruption Bureau had investigated the matter after registering an FIR and had later filed a C summary report, concluding that no substance was found in the allegations.
The judge also questioned the delay in pursuing the complaint. The order noted that the complainants had relied on RTI replies allegedly received in 2018, but approached the court only years later without adequately explaining the delay. The court further observed that the dispute appeared mainly civil in nature and that the complainants had not clarified whether they had pursued remedies available under relevant municipal laws.
On that basis, the court dismissed the complaint, saying there was no sufficient ground to proceed against any of the accused by issuing process for any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
About the author – Ayesha Aayat is a law student and contributor covering cybercrime, online frauds, and digital safety concerns. Her writing aims to raise awareness about evolving cyber threats and legal responses.
