The Bombay High Court on Thursday questioned the Maharashtra government over the investigation into the controversial Mundhwa land deal, asking why Parth Pawar, who holds a 99% stake in the company that purchased the disputed Pune property, has not been treated as a beneficiary of the transaction.
The question came during the hearing of a plea by Pune city's suspended tehsildar Suryakant Yewale seeking anticipatory bail in the case.
Justice Madhav Jamdar pointed out that Digvijay Patil, who holds only 1% in Amadea Enterprises LLP, has been named as an accused, while the investigation does not appear to hold the person who owns 99% of the firm responsible.
The Court's observation puts the role of Parth Pawar, a member of Parliament (MP) in the Rajya Sabha and son of Maharashtra's deputy chief minister Sunetra Pawar, under fresh scrutiny in a case involving the alleged sale of nearly 40 acres of government-owned land in Pune's Mundhwa area at a price substantially below its estimated market value.
According to the submissions recorded during the hearing, the state's investigating officer has taken the position that the person holding 99% of the shares is not responsible for the transaction, prompting the court to question that approach.
The hearing also saw the Maharashtra director general of police (DGP), Sadanand Date, inform the High Court that a fresh assessment of the investigation papers had revealed the need for a more detailed and professional probe.
Mr Date has directed Pune police commissioner Amitesh Kumar to undertake further investigation into the matter.
The development is significant because it comes while the court is examining the anticipatory bail plea of Mr Yewale, who is accused in connection with his actions relating to the disputed land transaction.
The state had opposed Mr Yewale's bail plea, arguing that the allegations were serious and that custodial interrogation was necessary.
The High Court, however, noted that Mr Yewale had complied with the conditions imposed when he was earlier granted interim protection from arrest. It consequently granted him anticipatory bail, subject to his cooperation with the investigation.
What Is the Mundhwa Land Case?
The case centres on a nearly 40-acre parcel of land in Pune's Mundhwa area which has been described in the proceedings as Mahar Watan land and was reportedly under lease to the Botanical Survey of India.
The first information report (FIR) alleges that the property was transferred to Amadea Enterprises LLP without the mandatory approval of the state government.
The transaction had attracted scrutiny after a registered sale deed was executed in May 2025 for around ₹300 crore. The property's value has been estimated in various proceedings and public statements at substantially higher levels, with figures of ₹1,800 crore to ₹2,000 crore cited during the controversy.
The transaction also became contentious over the payment of stamp duty and the subsequent actions taken by revenue officials.
The suspended tehsildar's role in the case relates, among other things, to a 1 July 2025 order declaring the applicants owners of the land and a 14 July 2025 communication to the Pune sub-divisional officer concerning the purchase.
Senior counsel Harshad Nimbalkar, appearing for Mr Yewale, argued that even if the tehsildar's order was legally flawed, it could have been challenged through the appropriate process. He also submitted that the FIR did not allege that Mr Yewale had passed the order in return for illegal gratification.
The prosecution opposed the plea, maintaining that the allegations warranted custodial interrogation.
The central exchange during Thursday's hearing concerned the contrasting treatment of the two partners in Amadea Enterprises.
The state lawyer told the Court that the company was an LLP and not a conventional partnership firm. Justice Jamdar then questioned the basis on which the investigating officer had concluded that the person holding 99% of the stake was not responsible, while Mr Patil, with a 1% interest, had been made an accused.
The Court specifically questioned whether Parth Pawar, as the 99% stakeholder, could not be regarded as a beneficiary of the transaction.
The Court had previously noted, while considering Mr Yewale's plea, a submission that Parth Pawar had not been named as an accused because he was 'very highly influential'. The submission was not specifically attributed to any party by the court.
The latest development comes after a Pune civil court in July declared the registered sale deed in favour of Amadea Enterprises void ab initio.
As
reported by Moneylife on 9th July, the 14th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pune, had on 3 July 2026 declared the 20 May 2025 sale deed inoperative from the beginning and of no legal effect.
The Court directed the sub-registrar to cancel the registration entries and make corresponding changes to the Index-II records. It also held that Amadea Enterprises would have no right, title or interest in the disputed property following cancellation of the deed.
Moneylife reported that the civil court's decision followed an admission that no consideration had been paid and possession had not been handed over.
Right to information (RTI) activist Vijay Kumbhar, who has pursued the land transaction through information requests and public disclosures, had argued that cancellation of the sale deed should not by itself end scrutiny of possible criminal or administrative wrongdoing.
The land transaction had faced another setback in May, when the Maharashtra Revenue Control Authority upheld a demand of around ₹21 crore towards stamp duty and penalty against Amadea Enterprises.
According to Moneylife's 14 May 2026 report, the authority rejected the company's appeal against the stamp duty assessment after finding that an exemption intended for information technology and IT-enabled services projects had been wrongly claimed.
The transaction involved nearly 40 acres of land for around ₹300 crore, while only ₹500 was reportedly paid as stamp duty by claiming the exemption.
The company was given 60 days to pursue a further appeal before the Maharashtra revenue minister.
The land has been described as Mahar Watan property and was reportedly under a long-standing lease to the Botanical Survey of India.
The controversy intensified after Mr Yewale allegedly issued an eviction notice to the BSI on the premise that Amadea Enterprises had legally acquired the land.
Pune district collector Jitendra Dudi subsequently declared the notice illegal, citing the absence of mandatory government approvals.
The transaction has since been examined through criminal, revenue and administrative proceedings.
Moneylife had earlier reported that the Pune police's economic offences wing (EOW) had clarified that the Mundhwa transaction was separate from a land-related case in Bopodi, although both matters initially appeared in a common FIR because Mr Yewale was an accused in both.
An FIR in the Mundhwa matter named Sheetal Tejwani, Digvijay Patil and suspended sub-registrar R B Taru in connection with allegations of fraud and embezzlement.
The High Court's latest intervention, coupled with the DGP's direction for a more detailed investigation, places the handling of the case under renewed scrutiny.
The immediate issue before the Court was Mr Yewale's request for protection from arrest. But Justice Jamdar's questions about the contrasting treatment of the company's 99% and 1% stakeholders have opened a wider issue about how investigators have assessed individual responsibility in the transaction.
The case continues to involve parallel civil, revenue and criminal proceedings over a land transaction that has already been declared void by a Pune civil court.
You may also want to read...
