Mumbai: A special court Monday closed criminal proceedings against developer Niranjan Hiranandani and others in the alleged Rs 30,000 crore Powai Area Development Scheme (PADS) land scam case. The judge observed that prosecuting the accused would not be in keeping with justice and that there was no prima facie case after the state Anti-Corruption Bureau submitted a closure report saying there was no evidence of corruption, monetary gratification, dishonest intention, or criminal conspiracy.The case relates to allegations that prime public land leased at concessional rates for affordable housing was diverted to construct luxury real estate and commercial premises by private developers, notably Niranjan Hiranandani, managing director of the Hiranandani group. “Having perused the closure report, I find that no material or anything incriminating, which could connect the accused…with the alleged crime has been found…in my opinion it would thus, be futile to unnecessarily prosecute the accused.., sans any material against them,” special judge Shashikant Eknathrao Bangar said in a 119-page order made available on Tuesday.The judge said the closure reports are based on cogent investigation, verified compliance, and supported by judicial orders of the Bombay high court. Pointing to the HC’s orders in three related PILs alleging breach of agreement with govt and misuse of FSI and development rights, the judge said allegations concerning breach of affordable housing obligations, amalgamation of flats, and sale of flats were conclusively examined and remedied.The judge noted that the high court had constituted a three-member joint committee to verify compliance and accepted reports in 2016 and 2017, which confirmed that out of 2,200 flats of 80 sqm, 1,337 were constructed, 12 locked, and 887 remained to be completed as per the plan and timeline.“The directions for completion of the remaining flats were passed with monitoring provisions. Any further breach or non-compliance was made subject to the court’s ongoing supervision, obviating the need for separate criminal proceedings…the ACB rightly concluded that no prosecutable offence remained. There was no material to show abuse of public office or conspiracy,” the judge said, adding that the probe was a ‘fair’ one.The ACB, through public prosecutor Ramesh Siroya, submitted before the court that sale of larger flats and amalgamation, though deviating from the spirit of the Agreement, was retrospectively regularised through the high court hearing the PILs. The agreement dated 19 Nov 1986, was executed between the state, MMRDA, and the developer for an area of 232 acres.Based on activist Santosh Daundkar’s plea alleging that Hiranandani and others were involved in irregularities in the housing project, a court in 2012 ordered a probe. The ACB filed an FIR against Hiranandani and senior urban development department officer Thomas Benjamin and others under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the IPC. In 2013, the ACB sought to close the case on the grounds that there wasn’t sufficient evidence. Daundkar opposed the move.The ACB’s closure report, which was rejected by the court on Jan 4 2018, led to a directive for further investigations. Following this, a second closure report was submitted on Aug 30, 2019. Daundkar challenged this report too and sought a reinvestigation. He alleged malafide transfer of the investigating officer, who was purportedly preparing to file a chargesheet against top officials and the builder. Daundkar argued that the final report was a result of administrative interference and suppression of crucial material. He contended that the final report is based heavily on the HC’s civil PIL orders and ignores criminal aspects. He sought a fresh probe by an independent agency.The ACB said the allegations were not supported by documentary evidence or witness statements. “There are around 8,000 residents (approx) residing in PADS. None of the residents have filed any criminal complaints over the years pertaining to the development carried out in PADS,” it submitted. It also pointed out that Daundkar had neither purchased any commercial premises nor was a resident or investor in the development.The judge rejected Daundkar’s plea against the closure report, saying it reiterated allegations already considered in PILs and brought no new substantive material.