Are the cops protecting Dy CM’s son, HC asks state

The question was asked during a hearing on the anticipatory bail application of Sheetal Tejwani, as Parth Pawar has not been named in the FIR

MUMBAI: “Are you protecting the deputy chief minister’s son and only investigating others,” the Bombay High Court asked the state, during a hearing in a case relating to the controversial Mundhwa land deal in Pune, on Wednesday.

Ajit Pawar’s son Parth Pawar. (Anshuman Poyrekar/HT Photo)

The question, which referenced Parth Pawar, son of deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar, was posed by a single judge bench of Justice Madhav Jamdar, on noting that Parth had not been named in the First Information Report (FIR).

Wednesday’s hearing related to the anticipatory bail application filed by Pune-based businesswoman Sheetal Tejwani. The court, wanting to know whether the police were protecting Parth, was addressing the public prosecutor, who replied that the police were investigating the case and will take action as required under the law.

Tejwani, who has been arrested by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Pune police in one of the connected cases, had filed an anticipatory bail before the high court in a second case. Her counsel, however, withdrew her plea after the court expressed its disinclination on noticing that she had already filed an anticipatory bail plea before the Pune Sessions Court, and a notice had been issued to the police in the matter on December 8.

The second FIR was filed on a complaint by Pune’s deputy inspector general of registration, Santosh Hingane, on November 6, against Sheetal Tejwani, Digvijay Patil, and assistant sub-registrar Rupesh Taru, in the Mundhwa land deal involving Amadea Enterprises LLP, a firm co-owned by Parth Pawar.

It was alleged that a sale deed had been executed between Ashok Abaji Gaikwad and 271 co-owners of the land, represented by Tejwani, who held power of attorney, and the purchaser, Amadea Enterprises, through its partner, Digvijay Patil. The sale deed, relating to the 40-acre plot, was registered on May 20, allegedly in violation of government regulations as the land is government-owned. Stamp duty provisions too were allegedly flouted.

The market value of the land was shown as ₹294,65,89,000, while the consideration of ₹300 crore was mentioned in the sale deed. According to the Stamp Act, the payable stamp duty was ₹21 crore, including 5% stamp duty, 1% local body tax and 1% metro cess. The complainant alleged that, instead, the executors paid only ₹500 as stamp duty, claiming exemption under the Letter of Intent (LoI) issued by the District Industries Centre for a proposed Information Technology Park development.

The complainant said that such exemption under the Maharashtra IT Policy can apply only to 5% basic stamp duty, and not to the additional 2% surcharges, thereby causing a loss of ₹6 crore to the state exchequer.

Further, it was said that the assistant sub-registrar had failed to verify ownership and revenue records before registration. The attached 7/12 extract still showed “Government of Maharashtra” as the holder, and no permission from the competent authority had been obtained prior to registration of the sale deed.

Tejwani and Patil were alleged to have colluded with Taru to defraud the state government by suppressing true ownership and misrepresenting the applicable exemptions.

Accordingly, an FIR was registered under sections 316(5) (criminal breach of trust), 318(4) (cheating), and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In her anticipatory bail application filed on December 9, Tejwani claimed that the sale deed was executed and registered strictly in accordance with the rules after undergoing required scrutiny, verification and acceptance by the registering authority. Represented by senior advocates Rajeev Chavan and Ajay Bhise, Tejwani stated in her application that she has no liability or involvement in the determination of stamp duty.

Tejwani also pointed out that the property, tagged as “government land” in the FIR, is wholly erroneous and contrary to the official record as it “was originally part of the Mahar Watan lands in Mundhwa”. She claimed that these lands had been recognised by the state government in September 1955, as private and heritable rights of the original watandars.