Will the Bombay High Court Order a CBI Probe Into How the Ambanis Acquired Land For Antilia?
Kaushal Shroff
24 May, 2016
But for over a decade, the land on which Antilia stands has been mired in controversy.
No. It was owned by a secular charity created by Khoja (Ismaili) Muslims. It was sold at above the circle rate to Ambani & the Charity Commissioner signed off on it. Perhaps the Khojas were worried about the worsening position for Indian Muslims after the attack on the Indian parliament & the Godhra atrocity. This was the time to cash out- more particularly because the notoriously corrupt Waqf board was likely to take over from the Charity Commissioner under the terms of a 1995 Act. Ambani had deep pockets and could pay in cash. Thus, this was the right time to sell.
Situated in one of the most affluent neighbourhoods of the city, the land, even conservatively, was valued anywhere between Rs 200 crore in 2002
The circle rate was 18 crore. Ambani paid a 3 crore premium. The Charity Commissioner signed off. Everything was done and dusted with expedition.
and Rs 500 crore in 2007,
Bombay didn't go up in flames after ISI sponsored terrorist attacks. Indeed, even after the Taj Hotel attack, Muslims were not slaughtered. Their property was not seized. But this was far from obvious in 2002.
but the Ambanis, through their corporate entity Antilia Commercial Private Limited, acquired it for a little over Rs 20 crore—at most, a little over a tenth of the cost, but likely much lower considering the appreciation in real estate prices since then.
But, in 2002, if you were Muslim in Bombay, your life- let alone your property- might not be worth tuppence. Indeed, people even spoke of a nuclear exchange with Pakistan.
At the heart of this matter is a tussle between two laws. Although the original owners of the land, the Currimbhoy Ebrahimbhoy Khoja Orphanage, sold the land in 2002 as they were entitled to do under the Bombay Public Trust Act of 1950, the land actually fell under the Wakf Act of 1995
No it didn't. Why? It was a secular charity to benefit orphans. It wasn't set up to maintain a mosque or other religious institution. Incidentally, the Waqf board in Mumbai is Sunni dominated. Khojas are Ismaili Shias. That was another reason to get rid of the property. Unlike the Bohras, Khoja political influence in India is not significant (as far as I know) because the Aga Khan had supported the Pakistan demand.
—a law that governs properties set aside by philanthropists to be used for any objective considered pious, religious or charitable under Muslim law. This made the sale of the land without the permission of the respective state wakf board—which oversees the maintenance and administration of wakf property and land—illegal.
That's not what Indian Courts have said. In law, the thing was a secular charity. Ambani has the best lawyers. Smaller fish would have been scared off from bidding because of the notorious problems with Waqf property.
In April 2004, the Maharashtra wakf board issued a notice to Antilia Commercial asking why the property should not be restored to the board.
The answer was 'go fuck yourself'. They did get a small pay out(16 lakhs) from the Khojas who don't want to antagonise the lumpen Sunnis too much. Hilariously, the Board later decided that this bit of extortion was illicit!
Though the trust eventually arrived at a settlement with the board, since then, many have claimed that their process was unscrupulous.
It wasn't. The Khoja trustees did the smart thing in selling to Ambani. The mistake was to pay off the Waqf board. They were bound to want a second bite at the cherry. But Ambani's own position was solid. He had bought the land from a secular charity. PILs were barred by laches. The Waqf board's suit, declaring its own previous actions as mischievous, isn't time-barred but the question re. what is or isn't a Waqf remains pending before the Supreme Court. Chances are, when the matter is resolved, Waqfs will find themselves fucked.
The contest over the claim to the land has been ongoing since 2005, but neither the state nor the court has ordered any effective action.
Because the claim is a nuisance. Still, maybe it will terminate with a Supreme Court Judgment which destroys the basis for all the nuisance claims made by Waqfs. A great source of corruption will be curbed. The Waqf Amendment Act 2025 solves the problem but some of its provisions have been stayed by the Bench. However, the trend seems to be towards curbing the power and reforming the consititution of Waqf boards.
After the Bombay High Court admitted the social activist and businessman in the matter on earlier this month, it may once again be in a position to order a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) enquiry into the dispute.
The High Court dismissed it and imposed fines on the dude and his attorney.
Set up in 1892, the Currimbhoy Ebrahimbhoy Khoja Orphanage trust was, according to its constitution, meant to “provide maintenance and education to the orphane/destitute boys of the Khoja community.”
It did not say religious education though there was provision for it. This was a secular charity. Though Sir Currimbhoy followed the Aga Khan, he wanted to benefit all Khojas regardless of sect. That is why he got it registered as a General Public Charitable Trust under the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner.
The constitution also stipulates that the managing committee of the trust shall appoint a religious instructor to “teach the Koran and the general and fundamental principles of the Mohammadan religion to pupils of the orphanage.”
But, religious instruction was not the fundamental purpose. It is a different matter that the founder thought religious education was part and parcel of education.
With a mandate to house young boys and educate them about Islam, the trust was eligible to be qualified a Wakf property.
But it wasn't registered as such. It was registered under the Charity Commissioner, not the Waqf board.
The trust continued working till 2002, even as its management likely became increasingly aware of the escalating price of the land in its possession. On 21 November 2002, the trust sold the land to Antilia Commercial Private Limited—the Ambani-controlled corporate entity which purchased the property—for a sum that would later appear meager: Rs 21 crore.
In the circumstances, it was the smart move. If war between India and Pakistan had broken out, all Muslim property would have gone to the Custodian of Enemy Property.
To put it simply, the Currimbhoy Trust was expressly registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act in 1952 and had been working under that law since. After the Wakf Act was passed in 1995, the charity commissioner’s notice officially gave up control of properties that would qualify as a wakf.
No. It was only in July 24, 2003, that an order was passed directing regional offices to stop dealing with the affairs of Muslim trusts.
I suppose the Currimbhoy Trust knew this change was in the pipeline. Hence they were in a hurry to do a deal. Why? The Trust didn't want to come under a bunch of corrupt Sunnis. I suppose the reason the Waqf board is pursuing the matter is because they have their eyes on some other juicy Khoja charities. I should explain, because the Currimbhoy baronets emigrated to Pakistan, their trust was more vulnerable.
As a result, a few months before the trust sold the land, it had ceased to be answerable to the charity commissioner and was accountable to the Maharashtra Wakf Board instead.
No. That was the case a few months after the land was sold.
In April 2004, two years after the land was sold, the board issued a notice to the trust and to Antilia Commercial asking why its permission had not been sought for the transaction. The trust chose to challenge the notice before the Wakf tribunal—a special court designated to deal with wakf disputes—in Aurangabad, and claimed that it was a trust and not a wakf property.
They got about 36000 dollars in 2005. Since then, they have got nothing.
Last year the Central Government's Waqf (Amendment) act was passed. In Maharashtra, this means the Waqf board has to have non-Muslim & female members. Previously under "Section 40", the Waqf Board had the autonomous authority to declare whether a property belonged to it or not. That power has been completely removed, transferring dispute arbitration power to State Revenue District Collectors and the High Court.
A great nuisance has been curbed.
An year into the litigation before the Wakf tribunal, the trust proposed an amicable settlement to the board. In 2005, the board indicated its acceptance of the settlement. It issued a resolution stating that the sale of the property was necessary to achieve the purpose of the trust—effectively giving the Ambanis a green light to begin construction. It also accepted Rs 16 lakhs in lump sum from the trust and withdrew the suit. The same year, the Currimbhoy trust filed a petition before the Bombay High Court, challenging the circular issued by the charity commissioner putting the trust outside the ambit of the Bombay Public Trusts Act.
And leaving it open to the rapacity of the Waqf board.
The petition is still pending before the court.
De facto it isn't under the Waqf board.
The wakf board’s decision to settle was criticised by many ministers, especially from the then-opposition in Maharashtra, the Bharatiya Janata Party, as well as from the Congress. They did not believe that Rs 21 crore was a reasonable price for the land the Currimbhoy trust had sold, and refuted the argument Rs 16 lakh was an acceptable settlement amount.
Why were various provincial politicians not allowed to dip their beaks? The answer is that the Ambani's were and are in the big league.
In 2007, the state government responded to the criticism it was facing for its inaction and ordered a one-man commission comprising the retired high court judge ATAK Sheikh to look into the legalities of several contested wakf properties.
Congress was in power and wanted to shore up the Muslim vote.
Sheikh’s report, which was finally released last year, raised red flags against the two former CEOs and one former chairman of the Maharashtra wakf board involved in green-lighting the sale of the land that Antilia stands on today. Sheikh was of the opinion that the board members were guilty of misconduct for personal gain. He noted that he asked SS Ali Qadri, one of former CEOs of the Maharashtra wakf board named in Sheikh’s report, whether the provisions of Section 32 (2) (j) of the Wakf Act—which requires that two-thirds of the wakf board vote in favour of a sale of a wakf property for it to be sold—were followed before the sale of the property. Qadri told Sheikh that “the provisions of section 32 (2) (j of the Wakf Act “were not attracted in this matter.” Sheikh inferred that this meant that the property had not been treated as a wakf. Qadri, he added, “appears to have a ulterior motive, may be for his wrongful gain.” Sheikh believed that Qadri’s conduct, “by making such statement, was exposed to be hostile to the wakf, specially when the board of the wakf is consistently taking stand that it is a wakf property.”
The problem with Muslims isn't that they fight with each other, it is that they accuse each other of renting out their rectums for pennies.
Throughout these years, BJP MLAs continually raised the issue in the state assembly, asking the government to step in. In 2011, the BJP’s Eknath Khadse,
now with the NCP. He was sidelined in favour of Fadnavis because of corruption and other scandals.
the leader of the opposition, said that the Antilia property was worth Rs 500 crore. Khadse demanded a CBI probe into the matter. Muslim MLAs including Nawab Malik from the Congress supported his request.
Bashing billionaires seemed 'populist' at one time. Now, only Rahul goes in for it.
Then, in mid-2011, perhaps responding to the attention the issue was receiving, the centre,
under the utterly useless Manmohan
too, suggested that the Maharashtra government institute a CBI inquiry into matter. With the pressure piling on it, the state government took the easy way out. It referred the central government’s suggestion to the state’s law and judiciary department for its opinion. Meanwhile, government officials took a stand that no CBI probe was warranted as Sheikh was conducting an inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act of 1952. This line of reasoning is specious at best; issues such as these are regularly investigated by multiple agencies simultaneously. In 2011, for instance, the Adarsh Society scam was being looked into by both the CBI and a judicial commission set up under the Inquiry act.
Nobody ever lived in it. But it hasn't been demolished either. A number of arrests were made but no convictions were secured.
Earlier this month, Shadaab Patel filed a PIL in the Bombay High Court seeking a CBI probe into the sale of the property. In his PIL, Patel claimed that Rs 21 crore was only ten percent of the prevailing market rates at that time of the sale. He also alleged that the payment of Rs 16 lakh to settle a dispute over a property measuring 4532.39 square metres in a prime locality in Mumbai was akin to “purchasing peanuts.” According to Patel, the deal involved large-scale corruption, with the pockets of a select few bureaucrats being lined up at the cost of the welfare of the orphans for whom the property was set aside.
This is the dude whose case was dismissed. He and his lawyers paid a fine to the court.
Coming now, Patel’s PIL could make a crucial difference to the case. In his PIL, he has asked for an inquiry by either a Special Investigative Team of the CBI. The Bombay High Court accepted his PIL, and on 4 May, sought replies from Antilia Commercial, the wakf board, the state government and others.
There is no story covered by Caravan which isn't like this- false on the facts, false in terms of predictions, and utterly foolish given what is common knowledge amongst people in the field in question.
No comments:
Post a Comment