Top businessman charged with fraud in Mumbai land case

It was on October 3 when the Collector complained to police, accusing the Kasliwal family of “being part of a criminal conspiracy” for the “illegal transfer of a government land”. Joshi claimed the plot in question belonged to the Maharashtra government, which had been allotted on lease since September 1, 1903. Contending that the lease tenure had expired on August 31, 2002, and that the government hadn’t yet renewed the lease, her office has objected to a Deed of Assignment executed by the Kasliwals, who are the lease holders of the plot, and one Huda Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. on August 4, 2014, where the plot’s lease rights were assigned to the construction firm.

Watch what else is making news:

“The assignment was done without prior permission from the Collector’s office and at a time when the lease tenure had already expired. It is an unauthorised deed,” said Joshi. Accusing the Kasliwals and the building firm’s partners Fahad Khan and Junaid Khan — also made co-accused by the police — of “executing a fraudulent deed”, the Collector’s office has further levelled the accusation that the entire episode was a “criminal conspiracy” hatched for undue monetary gains. The deed executed between the Kasliwals and the building firm shows the latter paid Rs 4 crore for the transfer of lease rights. Besides, the firm has reportedly agreed to provide the Kasliwals about 40,000 sqft in built-up space.

Records show Ajit Kumar and his brother (late) Rajendra Kumar had acquired the lease rights from Maharani Maneka Raje Puar of Dewas Junior on June 26, 1975. These further show the plot had been in possession of the royal descendent of the erstwhile princely state from 1946.

Records show while the lease had been originally assigned to the Trustees or Mutawallis of a Persian mosque for 99 years from September 1, 1903, the lease rights have undergone multiple changes since. The trust first sub-leased the parcel to one Gulam Hussain Ahmed Ali, who was reportedly an administrator on the trust in 1921, who, in turn, went on to execute an assignment deed with Jamshetji Navroji Gamadia in 1925. A couple of years later, the rights were sub-leased to Behramji Gamadia and Jehangir Gamadia. It was they who transferred the lease to Maharani Maneka Raje on February 1, 1946.

The Haji Mohammed Hussain Shiraji (Persian Mosque) Charity Trust has also approached the Collector with an application for renewing the lease land on its name. Just as the Kasliwals had filed an application before the Collector on December 12, 2013 for permission to convert the land’s tenure from lease to occupancy, the trust staked claim on the lease rights of the plot a month later, contending that it was a Wakf property. Further on August 9, 2013, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs backed the trust’s contention and had asked the Collector’s office not to allow any transfer or assignment or renewal of lease without the board’s prior permission. While sources in the Collector’s office said it was yet to decide on the applications, Ajit Kumar’s nephew Jayant Kumar, a co-accused, when contacted, refuted the trust’s claim. “The matter has been settled in the Bombay High Court, which has observed that this cannot be treated as a Wakf property,” he claimed.

The Indian Express has reviewed the court’s judgment. It turns out that in December 2014, an activist Shamshad Ahmed and a few others had filed a criminal writ petition on the contention that the property was a Wakf land, and had demanded that an “FIR be lodged against the Kasliwals and the builders for executing an illegal deed”. The petition had further prayed that the deed be declared void. But Justice A S Gadkari and Justice Ranjeet More, who were presiding over the court, had dismissed this petition on January 25, 2015. The Bench observed, “The main contention of the petition seems to be that the execution of the deed of transfer during the pendency of proceedings of renewal of lease was illegal. If the same is illegal, then an appropriate action will be initiated against the transferees. However, we do not find any criminality in the said action.” The judges, however, added, “It is expressly made clear that this order should not be construed as expression of any opinion on merits. So far as the renewal of the lease of land is concerned, the Collector/government shall take appropriate action with law. All rights and contentions in this regard have been kept open.”

Joshi, when asked about the court’s observation, said, “Our contention is that transferring a government land illegally is a criminal offence. So we have lodged a criminal case against all accused.”

Ajit Kumar, when contacted, said, “Why did they (the Collectorate) not revoke or invalidate the assignment deed when signed? We have paid the stamp duty and registration on it.”

Nephew Jayant Kumar also appeared to question the state’s action on similar grounds.

“The document for the deed of assignment between us and the building firm was adjudicated before execution. The revenue officers also collected stamp duty and registration fee validating the transfer. The fact that the lease had expired and was pending renewal or conversion was known to both the authorities and the purchasers (the building firm),” he said. But Joshi reiterated that the assignment was illegal and was done without the government’s mandatory consent.

On July 25, 2016, another claimant, Amit Construction Co, approached the Collector claiming it had purchased a 14,333 sqft portion of the plot from the Kasliwals through a lease deed dated January 25, 1993.