“Why Target Just One Builder? Mukul Rohatgi Calls Out ‘Selective Action’ in Raheja Land Dispute”

追加: 2026-05-21

[00:00:00]committee. Very valuable property has been disposed of by CIDCO without following fair procedure, which is not probably in auction. The High Court passed an order of status quo, etc. Another PIL was filed.

[00:00:13]Then next bullet, since the status quo was vacated, the Navi Mumbai Corporation granted development permission to the allottee. In the intervening period, government appointed a one-man committee consists Shankaran, retired IAS then additional chief secretary to inquire into allotment of various plots to the allottee. During the period of May '23 to December 2003 to December '04, the committee examined the subject allotment, determined that monetary loss to the extent of 50 crore was caused to the corporation due to the allotment to Raheja. The relevant part of Shankaran is enclosed. The CAG has also examined the subject case in the audit report of 50 crore or 26 crore. So, we can even CAG has paid determinedly 26 crore.

[00:00:59]And so, what is more important in this, this regulation gives the power for direct allotment. It's not that there is no law.

[00:01:07]There is your push rate in the tender case. So, my lord, when [clears throat] I was reading the relevant part of Shankaran is so-and-so, the CAG has also examined the subject case in the audit and observed that CIDCO has suffered 26 crore. So, my lord, CAG said 26, Shankaran said 50.

[00:01:24]Based on the recommendation, the government directed the corporation by letter of 2005 to take action about cases listed in Shankaran. Accordingly, board by the order of so-and-so approved the action taken by the corporation about the cases listed in Shankaran.

[00:01:38]Various resolutions have been passed in cases under D. K. Shankaran committee and detailed list of cases along with the resolution, recovery, rate, and decision regularization compiled and placed. However, no action was taken in the case of Raheja because the matter is sub judice. So, it's important, my lord, all the others who are regularized have paid and gone away.

[00:01:57]But only as far as I'm concerned because matter is pending with I'm struggling.

[00:02:01]All the others out there 50 cases.

[00:02:03]Subsequently on completion of construction the licensee sought NOC from the corporation in order to obtain OC. The request for OC was submitted before the board. Board resolved the result the request for NOC cannot be considered. Same was communicated. Being agreed by decision of the corporation raise up with the state government the state government will directing the corporation to grant NOC to the license subject to the condition that raise up submits a bank guarantee.

[00:02:25]And further direction to keep the BG alive. On submission of the BG by Raja corporation issued NOC and NMM MMC granted occupancy certificate. After receipt K Raja running a shopping mall.

[00:02:36]In addition to the plots on so there is an outstanding legal issue of so and so then we are not sure what we need that.

[00:02:42]Then we are not Then then the all this is going on. Now kindly turn me out towards Show cause notice was issued to you saying you are That that's me lord.

[00:02:55]What is the show cause notice got to you?

[00:03:00]So that's the policy we are not usually issue a show cause. Illegal occupation and Then there been occupation then they'll Then how much loss? That's the procedure. It's only part of procedure.

[00:03:11]It's a part of regularization.

[00:03:13]Yeah.

[00:03:14]So then we are not finally all this is done and at the last of that page we are not the PILs were heard and disposed of by a common judgment. High court held allotment to be illegal. Now page seven.

[00:03:26]Now page seven sees sub clause para D me lord.

[00:03:51]Now we are not over the page the first bullet point.

[00:03:54]K Raja the page the first bullet point.

[00:03:57]K Raheja we did a letter of 2015 replied to the show cause stating that the request for regularization should be considered at par with other cases under Shankaran Committee report as per the board resolution so and so and after approval of the government for recovering loss after arriving at proper valuation. Raheja filed a special leave in the Supreme Court against the order.

[00:04:15]The Supreme Court granted status quo.

[00:04:17]Then below this goes on and on.

[00:04:20]Then there is some AG's opinion at the foot of the page.

[00:04:23]The committee is appointed for what?

[00:04:26]See for Shankaran to assess the loss. So now below all this is procedural. Now page eight below.

[00:04:32]Page eight.

[00:04:34]Wait, wait a minute. Yeah.

[00:04:36]Okay, submissions to the committee.

[00:04:39]Whether the application sought regularization of the seller allotment.

[00:04:43]Is that what the committee has said about seller allotment?

[00:04:46]No, no. A lot.

[00:04:53]So two options but we are coming to give in it. Yes, so after that Three options it gave. There's opinion of AG and then at page eight below. Sir, to pay 2/3, 3/3 full amount. Corporation So page eight below. One minute, one minute.

[00:05:08]The option of the learned opinion of the learned advocate something.

[00:05:14]No, no.

[00:05:15]So So page eight below answer is regularization can be done but it will be subject to further orders of Supreme Court.

[00:05:22]Then paragraph two.

[00:05:24]If below it is regularized If answer to the board said it is affirmative conditions.

[00:05:32]Then question two below. So with the such an a number 11 on the second mansion is what is this F?

[00:05:41]Ah, so below first question two is answered that it should be on the same basis as others.

[00:05:47]Which one, which one was accepted about >> which is very No, two is accepted. Which one?

[00:05:52]What is the transaction or put together in this?

[00:05:55]Subject matter of So, this was accepted, milord.

[00:06:13]CG, milord. F is not relevant. G.

[00:06:15]>> that we read G?

[00:06:17]I'll read F, milord. GG. I'll read G.

[00:06:21]Decision taken by the board in cases under Shankaran. The state government made the order of 2005 informed the corporation of the findings of Shankaran and directed the corporation to proceed with implementation of recommendation.

[00:06:33]The board with the resolution of so and so approved various actions for implementation of recommendation of the report and mentioned 83 cases indicated in the report under three categories such as cases involving irregularities, doubtful cases, and where allotment appears to be reasonable.

[00:06:53]Next page. The board resolution mentioned by the AG in his opinion concludes procedure for implementation of Shankaran, format of show cause notice. Board has resolved to issue cause only in respect of allotment which are not sub judice and resolved that the vice chairman be authorized to examine and decide whether in the sub judice cases application can be moved before the judicial authority before which matter is pending.

[00:07:15]>> [clears throat] >> Uh pending for consideration of the corporation about stand of the corporation. Board also authorized the VC to scrutinize each and every matter of cancellation. In view of the above, as of date, financial loss has been calculated by the CAG of 26 crores as per the audit report and Shankaran as far as 50 crores. That's me, lord, for my case.

[00:07:35]In the board meeting, following options are proposed. Option one, calculation as per Banthia.

[00:07:41]On the next page mirror it goes on then option two is below what the advocate general said then option three at the foot mirror option three as brought out most of the cases in Shankaran have been settled please mark this mirror most have since been settled by recovering differential premium as worked out by independent government value as per the then direction of the government in the matter of six cases of the Supreme Court has also directed to cause a fresh valuation to recover the difference in view of the above the board may consider to the government to appoint a value to arrive in appropriate amount to be recovered to be regularization further the discount of one crore given for development of regularization of allotment of four plots in Khargar Navi Mumbai so mirror this is not concerning me but it is regarding the same policy where four plots mirror were done Do not not Raheja Do not Raheja I told you mirror there were 40-50 cases one such case is H mirror All right directives from the urban development Then mirror directives from urban development then Supreme Court see page 13 top is your lordship's order asking CIDCO to decide and file an affidavit then mirror this that and the other and and then final page page 14 14 1 4 other outstanding >> proposal submission 14 C N mirror N for Nagpur Yes yes in view of the directions by the government with the letter of so and so and the Supreme Court's order the board shall be apprised of the detailed facts of the case and proposal submitted to the board to take suitable decision regarding regularization to Raheja subject to following conditions one Raheja will pay 50 crores as differential premium Raheja will also pay interest from 2003 till actual date of payment CIDCO will file an affidavit in the Supreme Court The decision of regularization will be submitted to the state government. If the Supreme Court ratifies the decision to Raheja, Raheja will be intimated to make payment, etc. etc. On the next page.

[00:09:51]So, my lord, based on that the last line the proposal, my lord, is approved that you charge 50 crores, etc. >> of directors hereby required to approve the proposal. Which they have not Now, see page 16. 16 In the draft resolution See, my lord, page 16, second last page.

[00:10:14]Second last page now. 16 the draft Page 16. This is 25 to 16.

[00:10:21]Extract of the resolution my lord, which was passed on 4/2/2026 regarding SLP of K. Raheja. The board deliberated the Supreme Court video order directed CIDCO to consider the application on merits, take an independent decision. Decision placed by record affidavit. State government video letter directed the issue regularization to be taken by CIDCO in accordance with decision taken by CIDCO in case of other regularization subject to my Advocate General SC to allotment will have to be regularized on similar lines on which the rest of the cases were regularized in the light of the policy decision of CIDCO and the decision my lord included in Shankaran. Separate representations of Survey, etc. deliberated that the PIL the decision taken shall be informed to Supreme Court. Considering the fact resolution.

[00:11:05]Now, see the resolution. Resolved that the board takes a decision in the matter What is this paragraph separate representation Sanjay Survey?

[00:11:12]PIL and Shri Sandeep >> They are they are they are the PIL and they objected. This case >> Yes. These very persons >> Yes, these very persons. Sanjay Survey is present before us.

[00:11:21]>> My lord. My lord.

[00:11:22]>> Thakur My lord.

[00:11:24]Thakur, the decision taken >> Both both. board shall be informed to >> So, they objected. So, the final resolution is my lord at the last takes a decision in the matter of regularization of allotment made to Raheja on the basis of directive given by the state government subject to outcome so and so. Resolve further, board approves regularization of allotment of Raheja as per directive in the government subject to outcome of the S&P subject to the following condition.

[00:11:46]Raheja will pay 50 crores. Item two, he will pay interest etc. and affidavit.

[00:11:50]That's how we learn the whole thing is happening.

[00:11:52]>> the difference between one and two?

[00:11:54]One, Milord, is 50 crores. Two is interest thereupon.

[00:11:59]How much is that?

[00:12:00]250.

[00:12:02]Milordship noted that.

[00:12:06]So, Milord, there is a huge burden on me which I am accepting when admittedly, Milord, I did nothing wrong. You see, normal cancellation are those, Milord, where people are mixed up. You're mixed up in an auction, mixed up with an officer. I had done nothing of that sort including 50 people.

[00:12:23]So, Milord, all this has happened. Now, 20 years have gone by. What is the great point, Milord, in going only in one case? There are 50 cases which are regularized. Why only one case that these chaps have, Milord, going on and on?

[00:12:35]Total number of deleted reliefs in this appeal. And, Milord, this is a case where you have to bring a closure, Milord, after 20 years is what I respectfully submit.

[00:12:44]What are the other matters here?

[00:12:46]This is all there is. There's only one one one appeal?

[00:12:57]It's a retailers and mall, Milord.

[00:12:58]Employees.

[00:13:00]So, Milord, in this in this map I have given I have Sorry.

[00:13:05]I have given you a list of all 50 allotments.

[00:13:11]Yeah. Milord, I just wanted to show this for one second.

[00:13:29]All right.

[00:13:46]>> So you know, I just wanted to show you one thing. You know, look at the plan.

[00:13:50]The map on the right side I've given you all the 50 cases.

[00:13:54]In that list, something will not peculiar if you just have that for 1 second. Where is that? Yeah, this this.

[00:14:00]This map.

[00:14:10]So we know that on the right you will also will get a list of all 50.

[00:14:15]We know that I am at I am at Raijada is you will also have the smaller >> We'll leave it.

[00:14:26]I I am at item number eight.

[00:14:36]>> [clears throat] >> You will also have the bigger one is better. Yes. You will also will find I am at item number 16.

[00:14:49]16. Phone is yellow K. Raijada.

[00:14:52]You will also get that.

[00:14:54]Yes. Then you will also will note Kindly note items 20 and 21. Just you will not just make a tick on 20 and 21.

[00:15:05]1 ATV and 1 ATV CHS.

[00:15:08]Why I am specifically emphasizing on this that these two were also challenged by him.

[00:15:16]These two were also challenged by him.

[00:15:19]He has said below that when a show cause notice was issued, he is happy with it and he has nothing else to say. So, for those two if action is taken, it's fine.

[00:15:29]Ultimately, they also succeeded. But, what I'm trying to show is below, he has an axe to grind only against one fellow, one person out of 50 below.

[00:15:39]He doesn't challenge policy. He doesn't challenge the last portion below of the High Court judgement. Doesn't challenge anything. Doesn't challenge below for 20 and 21 and only below going against me.

[00:15:49]I have orders below where he has withdrawn.

[00:15:52]Yes.

[00:15:54]Give copies.

[00:15:56]Give copies.

[00:16:02]Just have a look below.

[00:16:05]You will also find Sanjay Survi.

[00:16:09]See below paragraph two.

[00:16:11]Petitioner is challenging the allotment of plot number 20.

[00:16:15]I give you a lot below in the list 20 to respondent four.

[00:16:20]Once then below your lordship will find third line on the next page. I just want to clarify Let me just finish it. We are not representing him. Yeah, that's okay.

[00:16:30]No, this is an attempt to create prejudice against us. All right.

[00:16:34]I'm showing what Survi did.

[00:16:36]>> [clears throat] >> The grievance of the petitioner top below is that there is underpricing for which these plots are allotted apart from irregularity. Then this goes on on etc. etc. And then below See below in paragraph three.

[00:16:54]Paragraph three.

[00:16:57]See below fifth line in paragraph three.

[00:17:00]In view of the notices issued to R3 and R4, Mr. Tur appearing for the petitioners submit that he is satisfied with the course taken by R1. So, he is satisfied below query two out of 50, but query one below High Court, Supreme Court, he files objections below before sitting there is something more than meets the eye my lord. That's all I wanted you to say. And I submit my lord a closure must happen to this case now.

[00:17:35]And ultimately my lord, it's a PIL to bring to your lordship's notice what has happened. If there are remedial things which have happened, should we go on now after 20 years my lord when there are 50 cases in one of them. And I did not do anything. There was no interim order here. Sorry.

[00:17:49]Interim order. Status quo.

[00:17:51]Then how did the construction go? Status quo in the supreme court. In the supreme court. In the high court there was it was vacated. So I applied for sanction.

[00:17:59]Corporation said no. I went to the state government they said yes. Give him sanction, give him OC. So hotel is functioning my lord for the last 20 years. And the mall which is now subject to your lordship's jurisdiction anyway my lord. It's subject to your lordship's jurisdiction.

[00:18:12]But it is going on my lord pursuant to that for 20 years. There is the equity my lord today to look at something which is going on a lovely hotel and a mall.

[00:18:20]>> Shankaran committee's report. Sorry.

[00:18:22]Till the time when Shankaran committee's report came Yeah. what was the extent to which the construction had gone on?

[00:18:30]Virtually my lord virtually it was done.

[00:18:34]>> [clears throat] >> Virtually.

[00:18:35]Impossible.

[00:18:37]That's all right.

[00:18:39]Virtually it was done.

[00:18:41]Yeah. In the Shankaran committee's report Yeah, please. Madam please. I can't hear what the court is saying.

[00:18:47]Please keep quiet.

[00:18:48]Sorry. In Shankaran committee's report Yeah.

[00:18:51]Whatever was there was there was just at the commencement of the construction process. Correct.

[00:18:58]So the judgment had come thereafter.

[00:19:01]Correct.

[00:19:02]Judgment came much later. Much later.

[00:19:04]2014. By which time by which time Also >> By 2008 everything was built complete occupancy given. You are asking the timeline. You are not >> My lord, may I have a look at You are not taking a Uh just just come back. So, there was Shankaran's son 2005. My lord.

[00:19:22]My lord. Thereafter, the policy is 2005 itself. See item seven.

[00:19:28]Right. Item seven.

[00:19:30]Okay, that's the High Court's recommendation. By item seven 2014 >> No no, seven to show that I completed the project of mall and hotel.

[00:19:39]I completed all that.

[00:19:41]In 2008.

[00:19:43]And then I obtained OC also my But during the pendency of the writ petition, there was no injunction against you from proceeding any further.

[00:19:49]Injunction for 4 months, vacated after CIDCO filed a counter justifying the price. I'll give two three days after the senior So, my lord, stay was vacated.

[00:19:58]I could go on. Permitted to construct. I complete permitted to construct.

[00:20:02]After that, my lord, I wanted OC to occupy. Granted. First, corporation said no stay directed no do it because the building has come up. So, all this all this was before 2014. No 2008. 2008.

[00:20:14]Yeah. 2014 is the writ order. 2014 is the writ order. So, by that time, my lord, the mall was up and running and so was the hotel.

[00:20:21]This is all 2005, 6, 7, 8, my lord. This entire And then here in this court in your specially petition, you got a Status quo. Status quo but you are posted Because, my lord, the order was said illegal.

[00:20:34]You are already functioning. Or yeah, correct. Order was, my lord, it is illegal. So, technically When did you get the OC?

[00:20:40]2008 2008.

[00:20:42]15/12/2008 15/12/2008 So, I gave a BG of 50 crores, my lord.

[00:20:51]You know, remember Shankaran said 50 crores. So, I gave a BG.

[00:20:55]When when? Yes, my lord. You know, she will find that.

[00:20:58]>> BG given on 26th August 2008. You know, she will find that, my lord.

[00:21:02]See item six, my lord.

[00:21:04]R2 directed R4.

[00:21:07]R2 is the plan. Directed R4 to issue NOC for occupancy certificate on the appellant issuing a BG for 50 crores, which we did. Why 50? Because Sankaran had been crystallized 50.

[00:21:20]So, based on that, I got the EC. It is fully occupied. I have hundreds of workers below in the hotel and the mall.

[00:21:27]From 2008, today we are in 26 below. So, it's now 18 years of functioning below.

[00:21:32]So, Yeah. Who is Who is next? Just Have you concluded? Yes. Yeah, that's all. Sir, just three or four facts, you The allotment was in the year 2003.

[00:21:43]Below, the price fixed was below 10,250.

[00:21:45]Now, she just note this three or four.

[00:21:49]2003 8/10/2003 The allotment correct?

[00:21:53]8/10/2003 below.

[00:21:56]Sir, allotment. Allotment.

[00:22:00]This is at page 241. In case your lordship just wants to note the page number, I'm not showing it.

[00:22:06]Below, the price was 10,250 plus some other charges.

[00:22:11]Below, PIL filed on 1st December 2003.

[00:22:18]And below, very important, in the PIL, they say that it is allotted at 10,250. Base price is 15,000.

[00:22:28]If they offer it for auction, they can even fetch up to 20 to 22,000.

[00:22:33]The PIL concern is not an environmental issue. No. No. It's only It should be by auction. Only Only the public money is being Public largess. Public largess are being Being done on nomination basis should be by auction. This was by nomination.

[00:22:51]This allotment was nomination. But, nomination as an application moved below. Applications were moved by us when the earlier auctions failed. The law permitted the new This was on nomination. I'll explain. Yes, sir.

[00:23:00]lord.

[00:23:01]So, below, the PIL was filed. The basis was this is not fetching the market price. Base price is 15,000. Certain smaller plots that were sold at fetched up to 20,000. So, my lord, stay granted by the High Court on 17th December 2003.

[00:23:17]Base price is 15,000.

[00:23:19]>> 15,000. And market is?

[00:23:22]I'm sorry, my lord. Market is 20,000.

[00:23:24]>> lord, they say base price is 15. For some smaller plots that are auctioned in the vicinity, they had fetched up to 20,000.

[00:23:30]This is their contention in PIL.

[00:23:32]High Court grants status quo, my lord, on 17th December 2003.

[00:23:40]CIDCO files its reply on 30th January 2004. My lord, this is very important because this is the first instance when CIDCO had an opportunity to participate. It goes and tells the High Court that the auction price they are referring to is in respect of a very small plot. This cannot be the basis for a larger plot.

[00:24:00]They had to My lord, two grounds were raised. One is it was converted, my lord, from IT to this multi-purpose, residential and commercial. That is wrong. Two, price should have been market price. CIDCO explained that IT, when it tried to do auctions, nobody came forward. So, they had to reconvert it. And my lord, second aspect CIDCO says is market price is correct because we have done this assessment. Smaller plots cannot be the basis. High Court, while vacating the order, specifically notes that we have noted the CIDCO reply.

[00:24:29]It refers to, my lord, para 6 to 12 and para 20.

[00:24:33]This, my lord, order of the High Court vacating is very important. It's at page 417. I'm not troubling your lordship.

[00:24:38]Lordships only note page 417, volume two. It says Date of the order. Date of the order vacating, my lord, is 23rd April 2004.

[00:24:52]Post which, after order is vacated, my lord, there's a deed of confirmation between CIDCO and the petition.

[00:25:01]10th January 2005 my lord. Have you put them on a piece of paper?

[00:25:05]These dates.

[00:25:06]My lord I'll Without too many details.

[00:25:07]Yes my lord I'll just give it. Okay, deed of confirmation. Yes my lord. My lord confirmation deed my lord is 10th January 2005.

[00:25:17]Write that.

[00:25:18]Then.

[00:25:19]My lord then Shankaran Committee was separately constituted by the government.

[00:25:23]>> 1st March it gives its report. My my lord sir right 31st March 2005 it gives a report. My lord what is very important is in Shankaran Committee's report which is assessing the damage.

[00:25:31]>> The government and they gave the policy decision. Just before that.

[00:25:35]>> Achcha. Shankaran Committee when it is assessing 50 50 crores as the loss the price it takes my lord is 20,791.

[00:25:44]It says it was sold at 10,250.

[00:25:47]According to us the price should have been 20,791.

[00:25:51]My lord this is my lord at page 80 your lordship will find Shankaran Committee itself is filed along with the convenience compilation.

[00:25:58]At page 80 my lordships just note this number 20,791 is the price reckoned by Shankaran Committee. 20,000? 791 my lords.

[00:26:08]Uh is that As the market price that ought to have been taken into consideration.

[00:26:13]My lord when 3,000 The price of the plot allocated to us.

[00:26:16]>> Allocated allocated to Raheja. But how much did did how much did you pay?

[00:26:21]10th 10,250.

[00:26:25]So we already paid about 31 to 32 crores.

[00:26:29]Going by Shankaran Committee's recommendation it would have been another 31 32 crores. 20,000 791 So the amount. Correct. So according to Shankaran Committee it would have been another 32 32 crores my lord. How we comes to 50 crores he says since we were also granted an additional FSI from 1.5 to 3 that must be treated as another 50%. So 32 plus my lord 16 comes to 50 crores assessment made by Shankaran committee committee.

[00:26:56]You know, that is in fact one of the one of the methods that came before this honorable court. Amay Cooperative Housing Society You paid 30 is what you say. Originally 30, now 50 plus 250.

[00:27:05]>> about now. Yes, my At that point of time when the 30 Shankaran committee assessed it. 31.38 30 and odd crores Correct, my lord. Whereas his assessment was to the extent of 50 crores. Correct.

[00:27:17]So, I had to pay my lord this much extra. His assessment in relation to market price was 20 was the balance. My lord, no. 50 50 crores balance. Because he says you also got additional FSI.

[00:27:28]>> Additional.

[00:27:29]So, my lord, now Shankaran committee >> Balance and over and above the interest part of the Correct.

[00:27:33]Which comes to about 250 years. So, my lord, if your lordship sees the PIL assessment assertion, they said 15,000 smaller plot up to 20,000. Shankaran committee takes 20,799 and it loads on it, my lord, FSI extra.

[00:27:46]That is coming to 50 crores. So, my lord, the High Court, after it vacated, they proceeded with the construction. We were granted commencement certificate.

[00:27:54]We were granted occupancy certificate.

[00:27:56]My lord, the government wanted to be sure that if a regularization were to be considered in future, they needed the money. We gave a 50 crore bank guarantee prior to the occupancy certificate being granted. 2008, my lord, all the buildings are completed. Buildings are operating. Last point. Last point. Amay Cooperative Housing Society was a similar matter that was also dealt with by the High Court. Your submission not again overloaded. Just these facts of your Yes, 2003 allotment and nomination Yes, and then the original conception of the market Yes, base price of 15,000 market being 20, status quo orders date vacation date and then as vacation of the Last last date. Last date which I'll include in that note, my lord.

[00:28:42]When matters came before this honorable court in relation to Amay Cooperative Housing Society My lord, it was argued on behalf of the Amay Cooperative Housing Society that Shankaran's valuation is highly exaggerated. If any other valuer is appointed, it'll be much lower. Supreme Court accepted that argument, set aside the High Court order directing drastic action, directed the government to conduct a fresh valuation in relation to Amay Cooperative Housing Society. Now, this group feels Now, lot of things have already happened. Houses are running. They want to accept the excessive valuation of Shankaran also.

[00:29:13]Now, what they do 50 crores, my lord, they want to apply the delay payment charges, which is actually normally for penalties. 250 crores, my lord, is the interest now loaded on 50 crores that I have to pay, though I have given 50 crores bank guarantee all through. That also we are accepting. My lord, 2008 completion, 2026.

[00:29:33]Thank you. Great. What is this, sir?

[00:29:36]There was one submission, my lord, that the regulations themselves provided, my lord, that the allotments could be made if there were reasons directly. I'm not on that aspect at all. Just for factually telling you.

[00:29:46]Yes, Mr. And for SITCO, the position is Your for the SITCO? Okay. Only just to say and confirm the position. You have filed an affidavit with me. We have filed the affidavit. Just to Today, somebody challenging that in that time, auction was the only option.

[00:30:02]Regulations of 1975 specifically provided that the corporation may before the plots by public auction or tender or any considering including that that I mean the land.

[00:30:12]This scheme of 2000 plots were initially for IT and IT services.

[00:30:17]They They could not get the enough people to come and invest. Thereafter, it was converted into a commercial and residential.

[00:30:24]Initially, it was vacant. This is 2000 from 79 regulation.

[00:30:28]2000 when the plot could not fetch the IT services and the IT services business into it, it was converted there on.

[00:30:36]Then the this was the four resolution was passed that what we should do with these plots and what we did. So, the due process is being followed. and the post that the High Court once it's confirmed then the regular litigation is also there. Representation has been filed.

[00:30:49]State government forwarded to the We consider all these committee at what the matter came to this court. Court said you consider and then we have passed the So, apart from the Raheja after the initial report which was given Yes. as per the 6th of June 2025 policy Yes. You had identified large number of uh allottees 40 who had not complied. Yes.

[00:31:13]And all of them were regularized? Yes.

[00:31:15]Yes.

[00:31:18]In the same manner, the same method, same resolution has been passed. These Today because we had a meeting over there at the beginning and the rates have been given. If we take the highest rate of that time, which the Shankar Committee has taken, based on that 50 crores, today we are ready to invest that But that kind of an observation was as against many other others also. Only you came in a appeal to the Supreme Court. Why didn't the other come? I'm not in appeal. I'm not in appeal.

[00:31:44]The appeal is from their side.

[00:31:47]I'm a respondent.

[00:31:49]You are? I'm a respondent.

[00:31:50]I'm respondent. I was just to make it clear. Yeah.

[00:31:55]They will manage it.

[00:31:58]By mistake they did it.

[00:32:09]So, I'm not in appeal. I'm just I'm a respondent. I'm just positioning that the Watts and Co. has taken that form.

[00:32:15]It's up to them. No, what we are asking you is why is it that only you are in appeal?

[00:32:20]Why is it that only Raheja is in appeal?

[00:32:23]Because that Other matters, just to clarify those 49, some of them were under litigation, some were not at all in litigation. So, the some which were subdued is those have also been settled if that's what you They were at High Court level. One was that I'm I'm mate settled. That order that direction of the High Court Yes, bro. which gave you in the last portion that liberty 61 yes, bro. That liberty would have led many people to settle it. No, no, there Even before they were utilized.

[00:32:49]>> That liberty was for me, my lord. Only for you? Yes. So, lot of 49 below some were settled without litigation.

[00:32:56]How many were there identical? Total 50.

[00:32:59]Like you. In litigation may be not there were around This PIL is against me.

[00:33:05]There was one or two others against me, my lord, as I told Justice already noted my lord against the two other chaps which he which he accepted. Some never went to litigation. They went and settled separately my lord and paid and went away. Total is 50. You were the only party respondent in the original PIL. My lord.

[00:33:22]My lord. Whereas the consequence of the order passed by the High Court Yes. was fell on everybody.

[00:33:30]But one minute. No, my lord.

[00:33:32]That judgement um though talked about directed Shankar's committee's report and thereafter it gave its report, but it worked out on the basis >> My lord. My my lord. My But in your case there was a judgement which needed to be set aside. That's it. Because inter That's why my lord I'm still struggling.

[00:33:50]>> That was inter say. Yes.

[00:33:52]Correct. Correct.

[00:33:54]So, after all this my lord be 50 and this and that, it boils down only to one which is here.

[00:34:00]Yes, Mr. Galvin. Yes, that's all please.

[00:34:03]Yes, Mr. Naphade.

[00:34:05]My lord, can I leave, my lord?

[00:34:07]They're busy days, my lord, so Yeah, in the first place let me point out what it paints HIDCO.

[00:34:21]Paints to accommodate KR Raja.

[00:34:27]So, kindly see they have filed an affidavit.

[00:34:32]And I invite your lordship to page 10.

[00:34:37]To page six of their affidavit.

[00:34:45]Your lordship got that affidavit?

[00:34:53]>> [clears throat] >> CIDCO's affidavit.

[00:34:59]Sir, you are referring to CIDCO's affidavit.

[00:35:05]Affidavit filed by respondent number three, that is CIDCO.

[00:35:19]Sir, this is the background which I must explain to your lordship in few minutes.

[00:35:26]The board resolution of September 2003 allotted them 29,000 square meter.

[00:35:36]I will take your lordship through the just for the purpose of this affidavit.

[00:35:44]Somehow, in the allotment letter, the area is increased.

[00:35:50]Then there is some open space mentioned, and the same thing happens in the lease.

[00:35:57]Our case is that they have grabbed their area has grabbed plot 39 upon 16.

[00:36:06]Which was never allotted to them by the board resolution.

[00:36:11]And this is what they say now, CIDCO says now, kindly turn below to page six.

[00:36:19]So, they issued a show cause notice to them.

[00:36:23]And without hearing them, they passed their CIDCO passes the order so that a ground is created to go to the High Court.

[00:36:30]So, they go to the High Court. High Court sets aside and said Page six. Page six, sir.

[00:36:36]I'm just giving the background. Then I'll come straight to the relevant portion.

[00:36:43]Yes. The High Court directs >> You are at page six. What are you reading?

[00:36:46]>> Yes.

[00:36:47]Now, this is what I'm pointing out to your Lordship and kindly see some after the High Court remands the matter.

[00:36:54]Accordingly, the then GMD Where are you reading, sir?

[00:36:59]I'm from here.

[00:37:00]You are at page six.

[00:37:02]So, if your Lordship begins with that dot in addition to plot number 31. Your Lordship got that? Uh yes, yes.

[00:37:10]In addition to the plot number 39/1, 39/6, 39/15 of sector 30A. So, these are the plots which were allotted to them under the board resolution.

[00:37:23]There is an outstanding legal issue regarding allotment of open space bearing plot number 39/16 admeasuring 5,490.7 square meter in front of the said plot, which is being used by K. Raheja for entry and exit to the said mall. It was observed that the words with open space were added to the agreement to leave in view of the board resolution, which changed the layout.

[00:37:55]The then MTDC issued a show cause notice on 4/8/2011 and then had issued a notice under section 55 of the MRTP Act dated so and so to Raheja in respect of illegal occupation and use of the plot number 39/16 at sector 39.

[00:38:17]K. Raheja had challenged these notices wide writ petition number so and so. In the said matter, honorable High Court directed CIDCO to take a final decision.

[00:38:26]Accordingly, the then MTS passed an order dated so and so and directed Raja to vacate the illegal possession of the land under open space.

[00:38:36]This order was challenged by Raja by writ petition number so and so for the PIL number so and so was also filed in the the matter and the same was heard simultaneously by the court. The honorable court by its order dated so and so directed the corporation to take a decision in the matter.

[00:38:52]Accordingly, the joint managing director conducted a hearing in the said matter and wide order dated 1 12 2014 directed K. Raja to discontinue the unauthorized use of the said plot number 39 upon 16 and hand over the said plot to the corporation and further directed him to pay penalty to CIDCO for Now, this is a vital circumstance.

[00:39:19]>> Now, this affidavit, Yes, my lord.

[00:39:22]Uh appealing by the order. The said order that is still pending, my lord.

[00:39:27]In this matter, the honorable court has directed to my >> Now, that matter is still pending.

[00:39:33]It's sub judice.

[00:39:37]So, we discuss this. So, so in which manner are we concerned with that? We are concerned. How? How?

[00:39:46]Because they say that 39 upon 16 is a part of allotment.

[00:39:52]Now, we allot The So, that's their case.

[00:39:55]>> This affidavit, you are saying that in this affidavit they have said something.

[00:39:58]What have they >> No, no, but something I want to point out to your lordship. The joint managing director says in the order in question that they are land grabbers.

[00:40:09]May I show to your lordship? That's all right, but you show us Now, if If a If a who is a If a person who is a land grabber is to be shown this kind of mercy, kindly see me, Lord.

[00:40:23]Mr. >> We are also on the question.

[00:40:26]Kindly see that order of the joint managing director. Four things you need to answer.

[00:40:31]This you have indicated about 39.16.

[00:40:34]Yes. Now, what is the final regularization aspect as regards 39.16?

[00:40:42]>> No, there is no regularization. The matter is subject to that petition.

[00:40:46]>> What What I want to point out Now, what they will do is moment this is regularized here, they will go to the High Court and say this is also regularized.

[00:40:54]Kindly see me, Lord.

[00:40:56]I just want to show to the various orders passed by the High Court. They say that this matter is pending here.

[00:41:03]And therefore, they don't want the hearing of that matter. Now, is this or is this not a relevant consideration for the CIDCO to consider?

[00:41:11]Their own order they are defying.

[00:41:14]Tell us. Tell us.

[00:41:16]I think two things are being mixed up.

[00:41:20]So far as if the present order or present resolution, if it encompasses without taking into account that the challenge to that order is pending before the High Court, then to the extent to that extent this present proceedings regularizing them and passing the resolution can be satisfied. That's a relevant consideration, and therefore, they ought not to have regularized That's a separate plot, no? No, sir, that is their case. That this is covered by 39/16.

[00:41:53]Let him say that it is not.

[00:41:55]But what is pending in the High Court then? The because the joint managing director passed the order asking them to vacate.

[00:42:04]They are not vacating. They filed a petition.

[00:42:07]And whenever that petition comes up for hearing, they say this matter is pending here. Are you Are you saying that 39.16 is a non-existing plot?

[00:42:16]Is it a non-existing public open space which they have grabbed?

[00:42:21]That's what the joint managing director says.

[00:42:23]Are you okay? We are not able to Are you saying that This is a person as against whom there is an allegation of grabbing with respect to 39 upon 16 So therefore because of that reason they should not have regularized not regularized because they were under Yes, my lord.

[00:42:44]Okay. Okay. Okay. We'll consider that.

[00:42:57]The ground in the SLP, 1 minute. The ground in the SLP, come to the ground in SLP.

[00:43:03]At page 105.

[00:43:07]Ground 5.5 Your lordship may see that's their case.

[00:43:13]What is their case? Their case is 39 upon 16 is a part of the allotment. This one? This one.

[00:43:22]Now, 1 minute.

[00:43:23]Kindly see my lord.

[00:43:25]Ground 5.5 There are many other things which I would like to show to your lordship.

[00:43:36]Which court went into that? Did the high court look into it?

[00:43:40]The impugned order talks about it.

[00:43:44]The impugned order The impugned order refers to it. There are number of things which I would like to point out to your lordship from the impugned order. That's why I said at the outset, whether they accept the high court order as correct.

[00:44:00]Show us from the high court order. Yes, I'll show my lord.

[00:44:08]>> [clears throat] >> Page?

[00:44:31]So, kindly come to para 43, page 55.

[00:44:37]16 allotted.

[00:44:39]They were all allotted.

[00:44:41]Then comes the execution of the But so far as these are concerned, the present one starts about 2003.

[00:44:52]And this relate to 39.1, 39.6 to 39.15.

[00:44:57]Correct.

[00:44:58]According to us, that those are the only plots which are allotted to them. And their area is about 29,000 square meters or 30,000 square meters.

[00:45:10]Now this additional 5,000 is land grabbing.

[00:45:16]So now let me take your lordship >> [clears throat] >> So kindly see para 43.

[00:45:28]Page 55.

[00:45:39]Then comes the execution of the agreement to lease on 16th December 2003.

[00:45:44]We must hear that on the very day an affidavit was taken from Raheja regarding an undertaking to develop Japanese garden on the adjoining plot. Surprisingly, the agreement to lease does not contain a clause regarding the condition of development of Japanese garden.

[00:46:02]Nevertheless, it refers to letter of in it recital which incorporate the offer of Raja to develop the Japanese Garden. The very fact that on the same day the affidavit was filed by Raja to make and maintain garden shows that both the parties proceeded on the footing that the same was the condition for grant of lease. Another interesting aspect is that area mentioned in the lease is 30,600 21.31 square meter. The original demand of Raja in their letter dated 20th August 2003 was an area of 25,000 square meter. The resolution dated 17th September 2003 fixed to allot an approximate area of 29,000 square meter. The area is further increased to 30,582.82 square meter while issuing the letter of allotment dated 8th October 2003. In addition to the area, the letter of allotment adds open space. There is a further addition in the area in the agreement to lease by few square meters.

[00:47:03]The description in the agreement to lease also contains a reference to open space without mentioning the specific plot number. This assumes some importance in the light of the stand taken by Raja in the affidavit in triple I filed. It is specifically contended that the said open space and allotment of the was made along with the plots which are subject matter Now, this is In affidavit dated so-and-so filed by so-and-so Digambar Prabhu on behalf of the Raja in clause so-and-so paragraph so-and-so page 18 it is Mr. So, Mr. T, your grievance is that the order of regularization in other words does not pertain to the plot which is in their occupation, right? Because it was not allotted. My contention is, if I may put it respectfully, that there are number of circumstances which should have weighed with the CIDCO as to why there should not be regularization.

[00:48:14]And to say that one he's an encroacher, that's why it should not happen. I'm not saying that, CIDCO is saying.

[00:48:21]Yes, CIDCO is saying, but that is subject matter of a writ petition pending >> Maybe. High Court.

[00:48:25]>> But they are claiming it here. Wait, that's your point very clearly, Mr. Nafde. What you are saying is that this is a case where there is an instance with respect to plot number 39.16, there is a serious allegation that the property was never allocated to you. You occupied the property. In fact, show cause notices were issued to you. You challenged them. The matter is still pending. The legality or validity of this is a big question.

[00:48:52]Therefore, you are a character Correct. where you are a land grabber.

[00:48:58]So, that kind of a person's land, how can it be how can you be regularized irrespective of whether that plot is involved here or not, it doesn't matter, but you are basically a bad boy. Or they could have made it a condition precedent. He's wicked.

[00:49:12]>> Consider that. He considered that.

[00:49:14]Then anything Now, sir, let me show to your Lordship my list >> We got so your first point is well taken. Then Then let me take your Lordship through my list of dates. Then your Lordship will appreciate that fraudulent is the conduct of CIDCO.

[00:49:32]But one other thing, Mr. Nafde, Let me I show me Lord briefly indicate to your Lordship Two things, two things also.

[00:49:39]Now, it talks about this High Court has actually given High Court judgment has given an avenue. No, that I'll come back to Lord. Come to that. I'll come back to Come to that. I'll come to that.

[00:49:52]Very well. Come to that part of it. Very well.

[00:49:56]Come to that part of the high court. No problem, sir. I will not run away from Nobody's saying you are running away.

[00:50:02]You are an officer of the court. What is that?

[00:50:05]Why will you run away?

[00:50:07]So let them pay what Mantri says.

[00:50:11]They have enjoyed this booty for a long time.

[00:50:15]Now I will show my lord how at each stage Exactly who is writing for whom?

[00:50:21]So kindly come to page 71 para 60.

[00:50:32]I'm sorry, my lord.

[00:50:34]Page 63.

[00:50:37]Now before that, sir, I want to show to your lordship one statement.

[00:50:43]Now Sankaran gave report in 2005.

[00:50:49]Then they never acted upon it.

[00:50:51]As far as CIDCO is concerned.

[00:50:54]CIDCO acts upon that and because Sankaran recommended cancellation.

[00:51:01]Not merely recovery. This is something which is not told to your lordship by any of the councils.

[00:51:09]Now they don't disclose Sankaran to the high court till 2014.

[00:51:20]Moment they see the writing on the wall then CIDCO wakes up.

[00:51:27]Now kindly come my lord to page 63 para 49.

[00:51:36]Now we turn to the report submitted by Of course, it's a Hold on.

[00:51:52]Inside.

[00:51:54]As all we turn to the report submitted by D.K. Sankaran, independently of all the reports, we have achieved recorded our own conclusions about the illegality of the process followed.

[00:52:04]So, this is important, illegality of the process. This has some bearing on regularization.

[00:52:10]The sum and substance of the conclusions recorded by D.K. Sankaran, who was an officer of Indian administrative service, is that there was a huge monetary loss suffered by CIDCO due to this transaction, and the allotment to K. Raheja is in gross violation of the rules and constitutional norms, and in fact, undue favor has been shown.

[00:52:33]Thereby causing loss of more than rupees 50 crore.

[00:52:36]The affidavit filed by Sanjay Gopal Paluskar on behalf of CIDCO, dated 23rd September 2000, also refers to one-man committee appointed by the state government, Shri Sudhakar Joshi, IAS.

[00:52:50]So, I pause here for a moment. There is some interesting aspect of this affidavit to which I'll invite your Lordships a little later. [clears throat] >> In the teeth of these observations, we wanted you to tell us about this diary.

[00:53:04]>> But then, you have to see in the context.

[00:53:08]Then, Lordships may come to para 51.

[00:53:11]The earlier IAS Joshi had also said one-man committee found fault with CIDCO.

[00:53:18]Moreover, even CAG report found fault with CIDCO for disposing Yeah.

[00:53:25]Now, come to para 51, page 64.

[00:53:30]Since we are on these reports, we must note in a compilation tendered across the bar by the learned senior counsel appearing for Raheja, there is a letter dated 15th September 2005 addressed to the managing director of Shilco by the state government which directs Shilco to take immediate action on the basis of the report of Shankaran.

[00:53:54]The action was of cancellation of plots and of recovery of law.

[00:53:59]Strangely till the year 2014 Shilco took no action in relation to the allotment made to K. Raheja.

[00:54:08]It must be noted here that on 18th January 2005 the development permission was granted to Raheja Shilco ought to have taken prompt action for implementation of the recommendation.

[00:54:23]On Shankaran committee as directed by the state on 15th September 2005. So considering the manner in which Shilco has acted, the reasons for such long inaction are too obvious.

[00:54:38]It's a complete defiance of law. No, but then I will not follow the High Court.

[00:54:42]What we are saying is that we are That is why when the list of dates were read to us we were wondering that why did the High Court do that? High Court should have just set it aside and then left it at that.

[00:54:53]>> But I'll come to that, my lord. I'll come to that. One minute.

[00:54:55]>> today faced with that situation.

[00:54:57]>> we'll come to that. The High Court does not give a carte blanche. Let's see.

[00:55:01]Yeah.

[00:55:04]So all past sins are wiped out.

[00:55:06]That's what is being put to me.

[00:55:09]It is That's why the money is placed in the state.

[00:55:12]Para 61. A dip in the Ganges.

[00:55:15]Para 60? One.

[00:55:18]870.

[00:55:20]Uh Yes, my lord.

[00:55:22]Yes.

[00:55:25]Another issue which requires consideration is the submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing for Raheja about the policy decision of Shilco to regularize illegal allotment on payment of certain amount for making good Yes.

[00:55:49]Making good the loss caused to CIDCO. We must note here that in these petitions, there is no challenge to the action of CIDCO issuing show cause notice.

[00:55:58]Now, this is important.

[00:56:01]I will come to your lordship again back to this question when CIDCO issued show cause notice in 2014.

[00:56:08]In this petition, we cannot adjudicate upon the question whether an allotment which is illegal can be regularized by CIDCO or whether the policy decision of CIDCO is valid.

[00:56:21]Nevertheless, it is for the raiser to apply for regularization and it is for the concerned authority to consider whether illegality can be regularized after considering the findings recorded in this judgment and order.

[00:56:35]Therefore, we propose to grant long time so we may clarify that we are not adjudicate upon the issue of entitlement of raiser to regularize. We are also not making any adjudication on the legality validity of the policy of CIDCO if any regularizing the illegal allotment. All these issues are kept open.

[00:56:56]So, kindly come to now. So, what's the implication of this? The implication is this. The court says that There must be either that the friends there there is an illegality, there is no In the light of this >> regularization >> In the light of this In the light of this What their lordships have said is that we have to take they have to consider what this court has said in this judgment. And which in my respectful submission is not considered.

[00:57:23]And I will to show to your lordship the number of findings of the high court on several issues. I will just briefly indicate to your lordship when I give to your lordship my list of dates. One, there is a area manipulation.

[00:57:36]Two, which includes land grabbing.

[00:57:42]Three, they say we'll develop a Japanese garden. They never do it.

[00:57:49]But these are conditions in the resolution.

[00:57:52]Not followed.

[00:57:54]These are too serious a matter for CIDCO to brush it under the carpet.

[00:57:59]And this is precisely what they have done. Now, let me take your lordship to your list of dates.

[00:58:03]>> Right.

[00:58:10]Sir, can we continue after lunch?

[00:58:32]You entered the CM.

[00:58:33]Because we were not aware of what was happening. Only for husband.