CIDCO’s recent move to transfer land for township development has ignited a storm of controversy among stakeholders in Navi Mumbai. On August 8, CIDCO invited bids from renowned construction and development agencies for a significant 27.3-hectare plot in Sector 10A, Airoli.
There are also reports of similar plans for a 100-acre site in Kharghar. This development has prompted strong reactions from various quarters, with concerns centred around the perceived financial implications and procedural irregularities. The CIDCO Employees Union (CEU) has been vociferous in its opposition, alleging that the decision to outsource development is a move to benefit a prominent industrialist.
The union’s letter to CIDCO’s vice chairman and managing director, Vijay Singhal, questions the necessity of appointing an external agency when CIDCO possesses the requisite expertise. It also criticises the deviation from the standard tender process for land sales. Financial concerns are also at the forefront of the controversy. The plan reportedly includes a clause where CIDCO would receive only 10% of the sale proceeds a decade after the transaction. This has led to fears of substantial financial loss for the corporation. Sources indicate that CIDCO’s board had provisionally approved this scheme following a presentation by a consultant on August 6.
The backlash escalated on Thursday when a coalition of social and political organisations issued a 10-day ultimatum to CIDCO to withdraw the proposal or face widespread protests. The speculation about which industrialist might benefit from the deal has only fuelled the dissent. CEU officials have expressed alarm over the potential impact on CIDCO’s future. An official noted that the Airoli land could be worth between ₹12,000 and ₹13,000 crore at current market rates, and handing it over at a reduced rate could jeopardise the corporation’s financial stability. The CEU president has threatened protests if the management does not retract the proposal.
Another critic has pointed out that CIDCO has yet to fulfil its obligations to Panvel and Uran Project Affected Persons (PAPs), who have not received the promised 12.5% developed land. This, combined with the perceived favouritism towards a select industrialist, has heightened calls for an inquiry into the decision-making process. The absence of elected representatives on the CIDCO board and allegations of favouritism have added to the discontent, with demands for a thorough investigation and public accountability.
