Why CBI Registered A FIR On Godrej Estate Developers Private Limited associated with Godrej Properties
In late January 2025 the Central Bureau of Investigation’s Anti-Corruption Branch in Chandigarh registered FIR RC0052025A0003. The case names Godrej Estate Developers Private Limited (associated with Godrej Properties), Berkeley Realtech Limited (now RSA Motors Private Limited), and unidentified public servants of the Chandigarh Estate Office. The provisions invoked are Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code together with Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The FIR arose from a preliminary enquiry that began in 2023. According to the CBI, the commercial project known as Godrej Eternia on Plot No. 70, Industrial Area Phase I, Chandigarh, fell within the distance then treated as relevant to the Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary and the City Bird Sanctuary. Construction was completed, the CBI alleges, without National Board for Wildlife clearance. The wildlife-clearance proposal was submitted only in November 2014, after substantial or complete construction. On 9 June 2015 the Chandigarh Estate Office granted an occupation certificate. The agency claims this occurred despite the alleged absence of the required wildlife clearance and that private project entities acted in collusion with unidentified officials to secure the certificate and obtain an undue benefit.
In July 2024 the Estate Office revoked the occupation certificate and the related building plans, citing violations of environmental-clearance conditions. The revocation followed environmental and administrative proceedings and applied to both Godrej Eternia and the neighbouring Berkeley Square project.
Godrej Properties has consistently rejected the allegations. In its regulatory disclosures the company stated that the original environmental clearance issued in 2009 did not expressly require prior NBWL approval. It further argued that no legally applicable blanket 10-kilometre eco-sensitive zone existed at the relevant time, that Chandigarh’s subsequently notified eco-sensitive zone extended to a maximum of 2.75 kilometres, and that Godrej Eternia stands approximately 6.6 kilometres from the boundary of the Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary. The project, the company said, was completed with the occupation certificate and consent-to-operate approvals issued by the competent authorities. Godrej Properties has maintained that it is cooperating with the CBI enquiry while contesting the legal premise of the case.
In March 2025 Godrej Properties filed a petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking quashing of the FIR. On 5 March 2025 the High Court issued notice to the CBI; the matter was listed for 20 May 2025. Subsequent company reporting continued to describe the related proceedings as pending and referred to protection against coercive administrative action concerning the project.
A significant later development occurred in June 2025. The Supreme Court-appointed Central Empowered Committee examined the matter and concluded that Godrej Eternia had fully complied with all explicit conditions set out in the environmental-clearance letter dated February 2009. The CEC stated that the applicant could not be held liable for non-compliance with unstated conditions, that any proceedings related to alleged non-compliance with Condition 10 of that clearance were unwarranted and not maintainable, and that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and the Chandigarh administration could proceed accordingly. The committee emphasised that its opinion was specific to the facts of this case.
As of the available public record in 2026, the CBI FIR remains an allegation of cheating, conspiracy and corrupt official action. No court has recorded a finding of guilt against the company or any individual. Public materials do not identify specific directors of Godrej Properties or Godrej Estate Developers as named accused in the FIR, nor do they establish personal criminal liability. The occupation certificate stands revoked. The High Court challenge was pending after the March 2025 notice. The CEC’s June 2025 report provides an independent assessment that the project met the explicit terms of the 2009 clearance.
The case therefore sits at the intersection of an official CBI investigation, an administrative revocation, a corporate defence grounded in the wording of the original clearance and the subsequent eco-sensitive-zone notification, a High Court petition, and a later finding by a Supreme Court-appointed body that the explicit conditions of the environmental clearance were complied with. These are the verified elements of the public record.
