Mohit Kamboj at Center of Rs 800 Crore Juhu Land Scam Allegations
• BMC Accused of Favoring Builder in Prime Plot Deal
• Probe Demanded as BMC Allocated Rs 800 Crore Plot to Builder in 4 Days
• Understanding the July 2025 DCR Amendment
A Sprouts News Investigation reveals the controversy over a prime Juhu land parcel, meant for BMC conservancy staff, allegedly allocated to a builder with political connections in a hurried process, raising questions of a Rs 800 crore scam. Reserved for housing BMC conservancy staff, the 48,407 sq ft plot was allegedly handed to a private builder linked to Mohit Kamboj within just four days of approval. The Sprouts News Team has unearthed documents suggesting procedural violations and undue political influence, prompting calls for a full probe into the July 2025 DCR amendment and its impact on Mumbai’s land policies.
- Mohit Kamboj at Center of Rs 800 Crore Juhu Land Scam Allegations
- • BMC Accused of Favoring Builder in Prime Plot Deal
- • Probe Demanded as BMC Allocated Rs 800 Crore Plot to Builder in 4 Days
- • Understanding the July 2025 DCR Amendment
- Mumbai Congress Alleges Rs 800 Crore Juhu Land Scam, Questions BMC’s Hasty Allocation to Builder
- The Prime Juhu Plot: A History of Contention
- The Alleged Fast-Track Approval for Mahadev Realtors
- Policy Change Raises Eyebrows: Paving the Way for SRA on Public Land?
- BMC’s Defense and Demands for a Judicial Probe
Click Here To Download the News Attachment
Mumbai Congress Alleges Rs 800 Crore Juhu Land Scam, Questions BMC’s Hasty Allocation to Builder
A prime 48,407-square-foot land parcel in Mumbai’s upscale Juhu area, reserved for housing municipal conservancy staff and valued at an estimated Rs 800 crore, is at the center of a major alleged scam. The Mumbai Congress, led by President Varsha Gaikwad, has accused the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) of illegally allocating the plot to a private builder with alleged political connections. The Sprouts SIT has reviewed documents that reveal a hurried approval process, raising serious questions about procedural violations and potential favoritism.
Gaikwad specifically targeted Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, recalling that he had opposed a similar allocation to a builder in 2013 while in the opposition. “What has changed between then and now?” Gaikwad questioned, alleging that the plot was handed to Fadnavis’s “builder friend,” Mohit Kamboj. The controversy highlights a persistent issue in Mumbai’s real estate: the allocation of precious public land meant for essential services to private entities.
The Prime Juhu Plot: A History of Contention
The plot, CTS No. 207 in Juhu, has a long and complicated history. Originally home to a BMC conservancy staff colony built in the 1950s, it was earmarked for the employees’ rehabilitation under the BMC’s development plan. In 2008, the BMC initially allocated the land to Darshan Developers for a Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) scheme. This move was controversial from the start, facing opposition from political figures and being flagged in a confidential 2015 BMC report for violating multiple clauses of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act.
The report, accessed by the Sprouts News Investigation Team, pointed out that awarding the contract without a tender and relocating the housing to a non-contiguous plot were significant legal breaches. By 2022, citing a lack of progress, the then-BMC Commissioner cancelled the No-Objection Certificate (NOC) granted to Darshan Developers, effectively revoking the allocation. The BMC had even spent Rs 11 crore under its ‘Aasara Yojana’ to initiate its own redevelopment plan for the staff quarters, which would have allowed it to retain ownership of the land.
Also Read: PACL Money Laundering: ED Attaches Panchkula Properties Worth Rs 696 Cr.
The Alleged Fast-Track Approval for Mahadev Realtors
The plot thickened in April 2025 when a newly formed entity, Mahadev Realtors Juhu Pvt. Ltd., entered the scene. Claiming to represent the “new promoters” of the original developer, the company wrote to BMC Commissioner Bhushan Gagrani. In a letter dated April 8, 2025, Mahadev Realtors requested the “revocation” of the NOC granted to Darshan Developers, but paradoxically concluded by asking for its “restoration.”
Documents show that Commissioner Bhushan Gagrani notated the letter the very next day, April 9, with instructions to “Please get this verified and submit for orders.” This initiated a remarkably swift process. Meetings were held with Deputy Municipal Commissioner Dr. Kiran Dighavkar, and a formal proposal was prepared by June 9. Astonishingly, the proposal received approvals from all concerned departments and was signed by Commissioner Bhushan Gagrani by June 13—a four-day turnaround for a decision on an Rs 800 crore asset.
Policy Change Raises Eyebrows: Paving the Way for SRA on Public Land?
Critics allege this speedy clearance was facilitated by a significant policy shift. On July 3, 2025, the state’s Urban Development Department issued a notification proposing amendments to the Development Control Regulations (DCR). These changes would potentially allow private builders to undertake SRA projects on public and municipal reserved lands. The opposition claims the government rushed this notification without awaiting the mandatory period for public suggestions and objections.
This amendment, if finalized, could open the floodgates for similar allocations across Mumbai, effectively privatizing the development of land reserved for public purposes. The connection between Mahadev Realtors and its parent company, Aspect Infrastructure and Construction, which is reportedly linked to BJP-affiliated builders, has further fueled allegations of a sweetheart deal. The BMC’s abrupt U-turn from its own redevelopment plan to handing the plot back to a private promoter has become a focal point of the controversy.
BMC’s Defense and Demands for a Judicial Probe
When confronted, BMC Commissioner Bhushan Gagrani offered a brief defense, stating, “We will ensure there won’t be any financial loss to the corporation while finalizing the decision.” However, this has done little to assuage critics who point to the procedural irregularities. Varsha Gaikwad highlighted the absurdity of the BMC approving a “restoration” based on a letter requesting “revocation,” calling it a clear sign of acting under pressure.
The Congress party has demanded a full-scale judicial inquiry into the matter and criminal action against those responsible. “The BMC needs to explain under whose pressure this was done,” Gaikwad asserted. The case underscores the urgent need for transparency in Mumbai’s urban governance, where high-value land decisions impacting public assets must withstand rigorous public scrutiny to maintain trust.
