All pending and upcoming projects, but especially those of the Merlin group of Sushil Mohta, the Surekha group of Pradeep Sureka and the JB group of Prakash Bachhawat, in the New Town-Rajarhat area will be subjected to intense scrutiny, say officials involved in sanction of buildings in the area.
This decision has been taken after a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court held that sanction of a 16th tower in the Elita Garden Vista project promoted by Mohta and the others was obtained fraudulently, and in collusion with officers of the New Kolkata Development Authority, and ordered its demolition. The ruling, say officials, puts a shadow of suspicion on several projects, especially those of Mohta’s group, which is promoting several developments in the area.
These include Merlin Rise, covering 15 acres in Rajarhat, with nine towers and 2,358 units; Merlin Lakescape covering 3.98 acres, with six towers and 550 flats in Action Area III and Merlin F Residence in Rajarhat, covering eight acres, with 11 towers and 1500 flats. All these projects have been promised with ample open areas and other facilities, as was done with Elita Garden Vista.
An official of the Building department of NKDA, which is tasked with sanction of building plans and surveillance of unauthorised construction, told The Statesman on condition of anonymity that residential projects of these builders in particular, but of others as well, would be scrutinized minutely to prevent fraud and ensure that NKDA is spared from the sort of judicial strictures it had to face in the Elita Garden Vista case.
The official told The Statesman: “Some of these builders flaunt their proximity to senior politicians and bureaucrats, and have in the past gotten away with illegalities. But now, we won’t let this happen, because we are not prepared to face Vigilance and criminal action due to their corrupt acts. We also do not want to face criticism of flat owners whose homes will be demolished if constructed illegally”.
In its comprehensive order of 29 August, a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, comprising Mr Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Mr Justice Arun Kumar Gupta, had directed: “The Engineers who have signed the revised sanction plan, and all the officers of the NKDA and the promoter and their men and agents who were involved in the process of the grant of the revised sanction plan, for the 16th tower shall inquired into and be proceeded against both departmentally and under the criminal laws for acts of omission and commission after such inquiry is conducted by the State Vigilance Commission.”
The Statesman sought comments from Mr Debashis Sen, who headed NKDA at the time the revised sanction plan was signed for the Elita Garden project in 2015, but he refused to respond. A questionnaire was also sent to the present chairman of NKDA, Mr Alapan Bandopadhyay. When contacted for a response, he said he had no comments to offer. Mr Bandopadhyay was asked seven questions:
1. Are you aware of the order of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court directing demolition of the 16th tower of Elita Garden Vista?
2. As directed by the court, have you taken steps to identify those responsible for grant of the illegal sanction for this structure?
3. What action is proposed to be taken in respect of demolition and against those responsible within NKDA?
4. The Court has held that NKDA colluded with the promoter to allow sanction and construction of the 16th tower. What steps do you propose to take to ensure such collusion does not take place in the future?
5. Has NKDA initiated steps under criminal law against its officials and the promoter? 6. How many other projects of the promoters in this case – Sushil Mohta of Merlin, Pradeep Sureka of Sureka group and Prakash Bachhawat – has NKDA approved in the past three years?
Do you plan to scrutinise these to ensure no other irregularities have been committed, in light of the question posed by the Hon’ble Court in para 171 of the judgment? (The court had asked: “The NKDA wants to avoid an answer as to whether there was evidence before the NKDA that the promoter had the exclusive right to construct the 16th tower. Will the NKDA adopt the same approach towards other promoters vis-à vis the existing flat owners?) 7. Does NKDA usually sanction building plans without ascertaining ownership of the land on which projects are to come up?