Portsmount Buildcon an Adani Group company has taken over a Rs 5000 crore slum redevelopment project on Rent-To-Own (RTO) property in Andheri (west)

The company has acquired a controlling share in the project and would collaborate with developer Shiv Infra Vision to build the project's approximately 11 lakh sq ft sale component.

After claims of errors and nepotism involving then-NCP PWD minister Chhagan Bhujbal stalled the project residents of three slum pockets—Anna Nagar Vitthal-Rakhumai and Kasam Nagar—acquired Shiv Infra to rehabilitate them.

According to the joint development agreement for the slum rehabilitation project on RTO property in Andheri (west) Adani Group company Portsmount Buildcon paid developer Shiv Infra Vision Rs 444 crore and additional Rs 100 crore as a security deposit.

Adani Corporate House in Ahmedabad is the company's registered location and it will be entitled to 76 per cent of the project's earnings.

Parag Adani the CEO of Adani Realty and Jackbastian Nazareth the MD of Adani Realty signed the agreement with Shiv Infra. 

When Bhujbal was given the project without asking for proposals in 2005 it was accused of favouring a little-known developer named Chamankar. In what became known as the Maharashtra Sadan case the Anti-corruption Bureau (ACB) accused Bhujbal and over a dozen others. 

Instead of constructing the Maharashtra Sadan building in Delhi a state guest home in south Mumbai and the RTO office in Andheri Chamankar was awarded development rights to the Andheri RTO slum project.

A special court freed Bhujbal and the developer last year. The evidence showed that developer Ms K S Chamankar Enterprises had not committed any irregularities and that the developer had received no undue gain.

The special court found no proof that Chamankar gave Bhujbal his son Pankaj nephew Sameer and five others unlawful gratification in its ruling awarding Bhujbal his son Pankaj nephew Sameer and five others discharge in the Maharashtra Sadan case. 

There is no convincing and substantial evidence that certain improper tactics were used in the deal. The evidence on file is insufficient and insufficient to even imply that Bhujbal received any criminal gratification in any form directly or indirectly.