This story is from November 11, 2019

Mumbai: Mhada ignores red flags, gives tainted builder Rs 5,000 crore redevelopment project

A builder whose credentials and track record are under a cloud has been allowed by the state housing authority, Mhada, to redevelop the 25-acre MHB Colony in Borivli (West) worth an estimated Rs 5,000 crore.
Mumbai: Mhada ignores red flags, gives tainted builder Rs 5,000 crore redevelopment project
The redevelopment of the 25-acre MHB Colony in Borivli is estimated to cost Rs 5,000 crore
MUMBAI: A builder whose credentials and track record are under a cloud has been allowed by the state housing authority, Mhada, to redevelop the 25-acre MHB Colony in Borivli (West) worth an estimated Rs 5,000 crore.
Mhada overrode objections of most residents of the residential enclave as well as a red flag raised by the housing minister in August following complaints against the builder, SBM Realtors.
Thirteen of the 19 societies have withdrawn their consent to the builder, complaining that the developer kept them hanging for 13 years. They had appointed the construction firm way back in 2006 and signed a development agreement in 2010. But work never commenced.
On August 16, 2013, Mhada itself rejected the builder’s proposal for failing to fulfil conditions under the redevelopment rules. TOI has a copy of the letter, directing the builder to take back its project file.
When contacted, the builder, Suresh Babu Malge, said: “You can write whatever you want to. I will do whatever I have to.’’ Senior Mhada officials refused to respond to this newspaper.
Last June, BJP’s Borivli MP Gopal Shetty held a bhoomi pujan for the project. “We requested him not to attend the function because of our complaints against the developer. However, he did not listen to us,” said Sandeep Burkul, a resident of MHB Colony. He said the 13 societies have unanimously agreed to go in for self-redevelopment.
Shetty said if the residents had now decided to redevelop the buildings themselves, he would help them. But in a letter to the Mhada CEO last month, Shetty defended the developer, SBM Realtors, against a stop work notice issued by the housing board for constructing on a recreational ground within the MHB Colony. “The stop work notice is very unjustified as the huge investment is done on basis of approvals and more than 2,000 families are affected and are uncertain of getting their newly constructed houses. I strongly feel that once the approval is given, the project should not be withheld for such reason. If approvals are not in line with the provisions, then strong action must be taken on concerned officers…’’ said Shetty’s letter.

According to the minutes of a meeting chaired by housing minister Radhakrishna Vikhe Patil on August 8, 2019, the minister said societies in the MHB which want to withdraw from the builder’s redevelopment project be allowed to do so. The minister also ordered Mhada to investigate allegations against the builder for submitting fake and bogus documents about its past work experience and file a complaint if found to be true. He also instructed the housing board to probe if the builder was illegally constructing on a plot reserved for recreational purposes. The minister said action be taken against Mhada officers if found to have committed irregularities in this project.
In the past two years, MHB residents filed a slew of RTI applications, cross-checking the claims made by the developer regarding his past work experience.
SBM Realtors claimed it had 1,450 acres SEZ project in CBD Belapur near JNPT worth Rs 20,000 crore. However, in an RTI reply, the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation said it had no such proposal in its record under the name of SBM Realtors.
Similarly, the builder also claimed have a Rs 200 crore township project on 96 acres in Margao Goa. But the Margao municipal council, responding to an RTI query, said it had no information since construction licences were not issued. In Bengaluru, the builder claimed to have built 17 buildings in different areas. A RTI reply from the local corporation said no such permission was given to the builder.
End of Article
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA