SBI Term Loan: RLLR: 8.15 | 7.25% - 8.45%
Canara Bank: RLLR: 8 | 7.15% - 10%
ICICI Bank: RLLR: -- | 8.5% - 9.65%
Punjab & Sind Bank: RLLR: 7.3 | 7.3% - 10.7%
Bank of Baroda: RLLR: 7.9 | 7.2% - 8.95%
Federal Bank: RLLR: -- | 8.75% - 10%
IndusInd Bank: RLLR: -- | 7.5% - 9.75%
Bank of Maharashtra: RLLR: 8.05 | 7.1% - 9.15%
Yes Bank: RLLR: -- | 7.4% - 10.54%
Karur Vysya Bank: RLLR: 8.8 | 8.5% - 10.65%

FIR ordered in INR 87 crore Borivali land compensation case

#Law & Policy#Land#India#Maharashtra#Mumbai City
Mumbai News Desk | Last Updated : 30th Apr, 2026
Synopsis

The Maharashtra government has ordered an FIR in the INR 87 crore Borivali land compensation case involving alleged wrongful payout to a private builder. The land, owned by the Devrukhkar family and reserved for a public garden, became the centre of dispute after compensation was reportedly released based on questionable documents. Earlier reviews had flagged procedural lapses, with part of the amount already recovered. The case highlights issues in land acquisition processes, disputed ownership claims, and accountability of officials involved in approving and disbursing compensation.

The Maharashtra revenue department has directed the filing of a First Information Report in the INR 87 crore Borivali land compensation case, taking the matter into the criminal investigation stage after earlier administrative reviews pointed to irregularities.


The direction was issued following a review led by Revenue Minister Chandrashekhar Bawankule, where officials were asked to initiate action against a private builder who is alleged to have received compensation without legal ownership of the land. The order also includes investigation into the role of former government officials who were involved in processing and approving the compensation.

The case relates to land parcels bearing CTS numbers 456, 458 and 458 (1 to 10) in Borivali, which have been owned by the Devrukhkar family for several decades. The land had been reserved for a public garden under the development plan, and acquisition proceedings were carried out by the authorities. Compensation of over INR 87 crore was sanctioned as part of this process.

According to the family, a significant portion of the compensation was wrongly released to a builder based on disputed agreements and power of attorney documents. They have stated that these documents did not establish valid ownership rights, yet were used to process payments. The family has also alleged that they were not given their rightful share despite being the original landowners.

The dispute has been ongoing for several years. The family had earlier approached authorities and legal forums, raising concerns that more than INR 60 crore had already been disbursed to the builder. Subsequent scrutiny by authorities and observations in legal proceedings indicated that there were serious procedural lapses and that the builder did not have a clear legal title over the land.

Apart from the compensation issue, the family has also raised concerns about being removed from a portion of the land where their residential structures existed. They have stated that the eviction was carried out without proper due process or adequate safeguards. A part of the land has since been developed into a public garden, in line with the reservation, but disputes remain over the handling of the remaining land and compensation.

Earlier internal inquiries had led to partial action, including freezing of certain accounts linked to the builder and recovery of a portion of the funds. Efforts to recover the remaining amount are still ongoing, and the FIR is expected to further strengthen the process of fixing responsibility.

The matter is also being examined through ongoing legal proceedings, with related petitions pending before the Bombay High Court. The family has sought criminal action against those involved, along with recovery of the compensation and accountability for the alleged misuse of authority.

Officials have now been asked to identify all individuals involved in the approval and disbursal process and submit a detailed report. The move indicates a shift towards stricter enforcement in cases involving land acquisition compensation and disputed ownership claims.

Have something to say? Post your comment