The Mira-Bhayander Municipal Corporation has cancelled the construction permission granted to Seven Eleven, a company linked to BJP MLA Narendra Mehta, amid a long-running dispute over land in Navghar, Bhayander. The civic action came days after Mehta said the company would relinquish possession of the disputed property.
The municipal corporation took the decision on Wednesday, according to a report by The Times of India. The development followed an order by additional tehsildar Nilesh Gaund allowing a petition filed by 81-year-old Asgarali Vohra, who has been contesting the ownership and possession of the land for around 15 years.
The tehsildar’s order went against Seven Eleven and other respondents. It is expected to clear the way for Vohra’s name to be entered in the land records for the property, which is currently in Seven Eleven’s possession. The plot had been fenced with metal sheets.
Vohra had alleged that Mehta and Swayam Builders illegally encroached on the land at Navghar. The dispute was taken up after Vohra approached Prime Minister Narendra Modi on September 8. Vohra described Modi as his childhood friend from B N School in Vadnagar, Gujarat, and sought his intervention in the matter.
Following that development, Mehta announced that he would surrender possession of the property and withdraw a complaint filed against Vohra. The construction permission cancellation by the civic body is the latest administrative action affecting the disputed site.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, Mehta denied that he or his company had cheated anyone. He said the disputed land had been sold to Vohra in 1989 by Renol Lobo and five others. According to Mehta’s account, Lobo and the other sellers later sold the land to Swayam Builders in 2011.
Mehta further said Seven Eleven had acquired the property through duly registered transactions from Joseph Fernandes and Mukesh Parekh. He said the company later decided to return the land to Mukesh Parekh and Mervin Fernandes after a dispute arose over the property.
Mehta maintained that surrendering possession and cancelling the transaction was a decision intended to end the dispute and did not amount to an admission of wrongdoing. The competing claims over the land remain central to the matter, with the tehsildar’s order now affecting the land-record process and the municipal corporation’s decision affecting the construction permission.
The next administrative step is expected to involve the recording of Vohra’s name in the land records, subject to the implementation of the additional tehsildar’s order. The civic cancellation and the revenue authority’s ruling will determine the immediate status of development activity on the disputed property.
