Civic chief had ordered inquiry after corporation failed to acquire plot

At least two officers from the Legal Department of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) may be suspended in the Jogeshwari land case, in which the BMC failed to acquire a 13,000-sq.m. plot.

An inquiry report on civic officers’ role in the scam was submitted to Municipal Commissioner Ajoy Mehta on Friday. It has called for strict action against the officers and a complete overhaul of the department.

The role of officers from the Development Plan (DP) Department is not yet clear.

The 13,674-sq.m. plot in Majas, Jogeshwari, was reserved for a recreation ground and hospital in the 1991 DP. However, civic officials failed to acquire it from the owner in time, despite the owner having issued a purchase notice. When the BMC tried to do so after the deadline, the owner moved court and the Bombay High Court ruled in his favour.

Tampered file

After the BMC lost the case, Mr. Mehta made a note on the file, saying, “We should challenge this in the Supreme Court”. His remark, however, was tampered to read, “We shouldn’t challenge…” After the file tampering came to light in May, the BMC filed a police complaint and several people have been arrested so far. It eventually moved the Supreme Court through a special leave petition, but lost the case. It is now considering other options.

Mr. Mehta then ordered an inquiry into the role and lapses of the legal and DP departments in the matter, headed by Deputy Municipal Commissioner Nidhi Choudhary. Ms. Choudhary investigated the role of seven to eight officers from the former, and 14-15 from the latter.

The report on the probe into the Legal Department probe report was submitted on Friday, while that of the DP Department probe was submitted on Tuesday.

The role of the DP Department is limited to why the land was not acquired in time and whether it intentionally delayed the matter in the Supreme Court.

‘Serious lapses’

A senior officer said on the condition of anonymity, “There are serious lapses on part of the Legal Department. We have found instances of misconduct, including delays and not presenting facts related to land acquisition to the court, which caused us to lose the case. Besides, the court was also not apprised of the fact that the land’s ownership is questionable.”

The officer was referring to a separate court case regarding the land, in which former owners of the plot have claimed it was acquired from them fraudulently.

Mr. Mehta, meanwhile, said, “I have received both reports. I am yet to read them. Strict action will be taken against those guilty.”