Nagpur: In a rare but telling move, the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) has been forced to turn the spotlight inward, launching an aggressive verification drive that effectively puts its own City Fathers in the dock. From Mayor Neeta Thakre and Deputy Mayor Leela Hathibed to Corporators and committee heads, no one is being spared as notices demand full disclosure of properties, including those held in the names of spouses and dependents.
This sweeping action, triggered by directives of the State Election Commission, exposes the deep-rooted suspicion that many elected representatives may have played fast and loose with the law on unauthorised constructions. During the January civic polls, candidates had solemnly sworn through affidavits that any link to illegal structures could cost them their seats. Now, that promise is being put to a real test, and it may prove uncomfortable for many.
Gold Rate
May 07- 2026 - Time 10.30Hrs
Deputy Municipal Commissioner Nirbhay Jain confirmed that Assistant Municipal Commissioners across all ten zones have been instructed to serve notices without exception. High-profile names have already been pulled into the net, with notices issued in Nehru Nagar Zone to Mayor Neeta Thakre and Opposition Leader Sanjay Mahakalkar. In Hanuman Nagar Zone, Deputy Mayor Leela Hathibed has been summoned, while Ruling Party Leader Narendra Borkar faces scrutiny in Lakadganj Zone.
Officials claim compliance is underway, but the responses so far raise more questions than answers. Hanuman Nagar Zone Assistant Commissioner Narendra Bawankar stated that the Deputy Mayor has denied owning any property, a claim that is bound to invite closer examination. While some corporators have responded, several others continue to remain conspicuously silent, fuelling doubts about what they might be hiding.
The notices come with a clear ultimatum: any illegal construction must either be regularised or demolished within five years, as pledged in nomination affidavits. But critics argue that such long deadlines only dilute accountability and provide a convenient escape route for violators.
The entire exercise gained traction after legal pressure from Advocate Suhas Bidkar, who demanded strict verification of property disclosures. Acting on this, Municipal Commissioner Dr. Vipin Itankar directed the General Administration Department to initiate proceedings, an action that many believe should have come much earlier.
Public interest advocates, however, are not convinced. They warn that unless this drive is pursued with ruthless honesty, it risks becoming yet another eyewash, an administrative ritual designed to shield rather than expose. The credibility of the electoral process, they insist, hinges on whether the powerful are held to the same standards as ordinary citizens.
With several key office-bearers yet to respond and uncomfortable truths likely to emerge, the question remains: will this crackdown deliver real accountability, or will it collapse under political pressure like so many efforts before it?
